Back
2023 Supreme(SC) 804
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Sanjay Karol, JJ.
Vijaya Bhiku Kadam – Appellant
versus
Mayani Bhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 54835484 OF 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 67646765 of 2018)
Decided On : 28-08-2023
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, AOR Mrs. Shilpa A. Suryawanshi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Tushar D.bhelkar, Adv. Mr. Akshay Jagtap, Adv. Mr. Vinay Navare,Sr.Adv. Mr. Pravartak Pathak,Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR Mr. Mahesh P. Shinde, Adv. Ms. Rucha A. Pande, Adv. Mr. M. Veeraragavan, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Directions issued in exercise of jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 142 of Constitution of India shall not be treated as precedent.
Headnote:
(A) Service Law – Appointment – Post of Lecturer in college – Appellant was appointed on the basis of first advertisement – Even on the basis of second advertisement, appellant was selected – In both processes, appellant was selected against open category post – University approved appointment of appellant against open post of Lecturer – University also approved appointment of respondent against post reserved for Scheduled Caste category on a temporary basis – Even assuming that there was error committed by College Management by appointing appellant against open category of post in year 1994, appellant cannot be allowed to suffer as in second process, she was the first in order of merit – This selection was never challenged by respondent – Appellant continues to work as a Lecturer in English on a half time basis – For doing substantial justice, this is a fit case to invoke power under Article 142 of Constitution of India for continuing her appointment on full time basis – State Government directed to release necessary grant-in-aid for payment of salary to appellant from date of her appointment. [Article 142 of Constitution of India] (Paras 10, 12, 14, 15 and 16)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 142 – Power to do complete justice – Directions issued in exercise of jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 142 of Constitution of India shall not be treated as precedent. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
Issue concerns the employment of the appellant, a Lecturer, with the second respondent–College which is affiliated to the fourth respondent–Shivaji University, Kolhapur, Maharashtra.
Findings of Court:
Appellant will not be entitled to salary admissible the post of Lecturer from 5th January 1995 till the date of her appointment in terms of this Order and this period shall be taken into consideration only for the limited purposes of granting retiral benefits to appellant.
Result : Appeals disposed of.
JUDGMENT
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Leave granted.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. The issue concerns the employment of the appellant, a lecturer, with the second respondent–College which is affiliated to the fourth respondent–Shivaji University, Kolhapur, Maharashtra.
3. The appellant has done M.A. in English and by the year 1992, she had acquired the qualification of PhD. The second respondent–College was established in the Academic Year 19911992. On an application made by the appellant, by the order dated 15th September 1992, the second respondent College appointed the appellant as a part-time lecturer in English for the Academic Year 19921993. The first respondent-Society runs the second respondent-College. The fourth respondent–University approved the said appointment.
4. On 5th July 1993, an advertisement (the first advertisement) was published by the first respondent for inviting applications to the posts of fulltime lecturer. In the said advertisement, two posts were advertised. One was in the open category and the other one was against the Scheduled Caste category. The appellant and the fifth respondent applied for the said posts along with another candidate, namely, Ms S.D. Patil. The University Selection Committee recommended the aforesaid three candidates. The name of Ms S.D. Patil was first in the order of merit, the fifth respondent was the second one and the appellant was the third one. Though the fifth respondent did not belong to the Scheduled Caste category, on 26th August 1993, the first respondent appointed her against the post reserved for the Scheduled Caste category for a period of one year. Ms S.D. Patil, the candidate at serial no.1 in the order of merit, did not join the employment and therefore, by the appointment order dated 8th September 1993, the appellant was appointed to the post of lecturer in English for one academic year on a full-time basis.
5. The fourth respondent–University approved the appointment of Ms S.D. Patil as a fulltime lecturer in the open category. The fourth respondent–University approved the appointment of the fifth respondent for a period of one academic year against the post reserved for the Scheduled Caste category. The approval was given subject to a condition that during the period of probation, the candidates must clear the NET Examination. Noticing the mistake in the approval granted by the fourth respondent–University, the second respondent–College wrote a letter on 28th January 1994 to the fourth respondent–University requesting to grant approval to the appointment of the appellant in the open category as Ms S.D. Patil did not join. The fourth respondent–University, by the letter dated 4th March 1994, did not accept the said request as the appellant was not possessing NET qualification. At that time, both the appellant and the fifth respondent were not possessing NET qualification.
6. On 8th September 1994, the second respondent–College again advertised (the second advertisement) the two posts. The advertisement recorded that the requirement of NET qualification was exempted to those candidates who have been awarded a PhD degree before 31st December 1993. Both the appellant and the fifth respondent applied for that post. However, the fifth respondent was not possessing the qualification of a PhD. She had appeared for the M. Phil degree examination. The University Selection Committee recommended the names of the appellant and the fifth respondent. As per the order of merit, the appellant was above the fifth respondent. The Selection Committee recommended the appellant for appointment to the open category post. The fifth respondent was recommended for the post reserved against the Scheduled Caste category. The fourth respondent–University approved the appointment of the appellant on the open post and granted approval to the appointment of the fifth respondent on the post reserved for the Scheduled Caste category.
7. The third advertisement was published by the first respondent–College on 7th Au
