Back
KRISHNA S. DIXIT, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
Vijayalakshmi H. S. , D/o. Shivaji Hitnikar – Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Krishna S. Dixit, J.) :
This intra-court Appeal seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 24.02.2016 whereby, the Appellant’s W.P.No.29574/2013 (S-RES) has been negatived. In the said writ petition, what was challenged by the Appellant is the order dated 15.05.2013 whereby, her Revision Petition No.16/2012 filed u/s 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, having been negatived by the Educational Appellate Authority-1st Respondent, the prayer for her absorption in service was rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant vehemently argues and that is supported by the learned counsel appearing for the Management i.e., Respondent Nos.4 & 5 that the vacancy in the post in question arose on 31.05.1996 on one Mr.Shankareshwar Bhat having demitted office on attaining the age of superannuation and to that vacancy, the Appellant came to be appointed vide order dated 01.06.1996 by the competent body of the institution as Hindi lecturer on part time basis. This was preceded by a due selection from the open market. The weekly teaching load comprised of sixteen hours. He further submits that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in assuming that thre
The court established that the absorption of part-time lecturers is justified when conditions of sanctioned posts and vacancies are met, emphasizing the protective intent of the relevant rules.
The principle of parity mandates that similarly situated individuals must be treated equally in matters of service absorption and benefits.
Absorption of university teachers requires both eligibility and availability of sanctioned posts; mere eligibility does not suffice.
Part-time lecturers must undergo a selection process to be appointed as full-time lecturers; mere service as part-time does not confer an automatic right to promotion.
The court upheld that differential treatment in service absorption timelines does not violate constitutional rights as long as prior benefits remain intact.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
