Repeated attempts to challenge an appointment without evidence of one's own entitlement can be deemed an abuse of process of law and may be rejected.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since the issues involved in both these captioned writ petitions are intrinsically connected, the same are heard together and decided analogously by this Common Judgment.

2. This is a classic case where the litigant keeps on spinning the litigation wheel of fortune until he / she hits with the jackpot.

FACTS

3. The petitioner is serving as a part-timer Lecturer. Though, it is her case that she was selected for full-time Lecturer, but the respondents have illegally appointed the respondent No.5 on such post. The petitioner is having degree of Bachelor of Arts (BA) in Psychology. The petitioner cleared the said examination with 1st Class securing 60% marks. She was appointed as a part-timer Lecturer in Psychology subject by the respondent No.3, on 01.12.1992.

3.1 Thereafter, the respondents published an advertisement for filling up the post of the full-time Lecturer on 02.09.1993.

3.2 Pursuant to the said advertisement, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 received total 32 applications. The selection Committee was constituted, however no one was appointed pursuant to the said advertisement & interview, as it was held by the Selection Committee that the respondent No.2 and 3 did not obtain any “no objection certificate” for making such appointment for the teaching staff. Accordingly, the respondent No.3 - College requested the State Government to issue “no objection certificate” for filling up the post of teach staff. Thereafter, vide order dated 06.07.1994, the commissioner of Higher Education gave “No Objection Certificate” in respect to the appointment of the teaching staff.

3.3 Thereafter, a fresh advertisement was issued by the respondent-Trust for which the interviews were held on 29.05.1995. The petitioner and the respondent No.5 appeared in the said interview and in the final result, the respondent was placed at serial No.1 and the petitioner was placed at the serial No.2 by the Selection Committee. The list was not made available to the petitioner, however, when the petitioner learned about the selection of the respondent No.5, the petitioner started inquiry about the procedure followed by the respondents with respect of the interview held by the respondents was validly held and there was no defect at all.

3.4 Being aggrieved by the said selection of the respondent No.5, the petitioner filed an application being Application No.59 of 1995 before the Gujarat Affiliated College Service Tribunal at Ahmedabad under Section 8 of the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal Act. It appears that an ad-interim relief was granted by the Tribunal of maintaining status quo by the order dated 22.02.1996. The respondent No.5 made an application for joining in the said proceedings, which was rejected by the Tribunal.

3.5 Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the respondent No.5 approached this Court by filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No.892 of 1999, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 05.04.1999 and the respondent No.5 was allowed to join as party respondent in the application being Application No.59 of 1995 filed by the petitioner.

3.6 By the judgment and order dated 14.02.2003, the Tribunal rejected the application being Application No.59 of 1995 filed by the petitioner and the status quo order, as granted earlier, was also vacated.

3.7 Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the said judgment and order dated 14.02.2003 by filing a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.2174 of 2003. This Court rejected the said petition vide order dated 07.03.2003, with a liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to challenge the appointment of the respondent No.5 appointing her on the post of full-time Lecturer.

3.8 The petitioner, thereafter filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.2705 of 2003 before this Court challenging the selection process and the selection of respondent No.5 to the post of full-time Lecturer, however the petitioner withdrew the said petition to mak