Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 1708
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.
Mehta Dhirendra Rasiklal – Petitioner
Versus
Acharyashri & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 4897 Of 2007
Decided On : 07-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr Prashant Mankad
For the Respondent: Ms Pooja K Ashar, AGP, Mr Hriday Buch, Mr.Subhash G Barot
IMPORTANT POINT
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.
Headnote:
Employment - Lecturer Appointment - Government Resolution 1980, 1996 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Government Resolutions regarding the promotion of part-time lecturers to full-time positions, concluding that the petitioner was not entitled to such promotion without selection through the proper procedure.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a part-time lecturer since 1989, applied for a full-time lecturer position but was not selected. The Tribunal ruled in favor of another candidate, leading the petitioner to challenge the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not selected by the Selection Committee and thus could not claim a right to appointment as a full-time lecturer, emphasizing the necessity of following due procedure.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as a full-time lecturer despite not being selected by the Selection Committee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that part-time lecturers do not have an automatic right to be promoted to full-time positions without undergoing the selection process, as per the applicable government resolutions.
Result: The petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.
1. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.01.2007 passed by the Gujarat Affiliated Collages Services Tribunal in Application No.12 of 1997 and has prayed for the following reliefs:
“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit the present petition
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ certiorari or mandamus or a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside order dated 12th January 2007 passed by Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal, in Application No.12 of 1997 filed by respondent No.4; and further be pleased to allow Application No.76 of 1996 filed by the petitioner in toto;
(C) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased
[i] to stay and suspend the execution, implementation, operation and enforcement of the judgment and order dated 12th January 2007 passed by Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal, [Annexure “G”];
[ii] to direct the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 not to prevent the petitioner from working as Lecturer and/or part-time Lecturer in the subject of Philosophy;
(D) An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (C) may kindly be granted.
(E) And to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper.”
2. Heard Mr. Prashant Mankad, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Nishant Lalakiya, learned advocate for Mr. Hriday Buch, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 – Bhavnagar University and Mr. Subhash G. Barot, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.4.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus:
3.1 The petitioner herein came to be appointed by the respondent No.1 – college as part time Lecturer with effect from 19.12.1989 in the subject of Philosophy. The name of the petitioner figured at serial no.1. A copy of the appointment order dated 19.12.1989 is duly produced at Annexure – A.
3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 issued an advertisement dated 13.05.1996 for the post of Lecturer being Advertisement No.2/96; duly produced at page 156 to 159. The petitioner applied for the said post. The petitioner was also called for interview however, the petitioner was not selected for the said post due to following reasons : (true translation)
“In the judgment by the Tribunal in Shri Mehta’s Appeal No. 76/1996, it has been held that Shri Mehta was ordinarily working as a Part-time Lecturer and as he has not been selected in the viva voce test, a procedure established by the law, he is not entitled to appointment as a full-time lecturer. (Copy appended)
The resolution dated 29/12/1980 was in effect till 1995. Thereafter, the State Government has changed the policy and the said interview was held in 1996. Therefore, Shri Mehta’s demand on the basis of the resolution of 1980 does not seem appropriate.
Shri Mehta took part in the viva voce test. The Selection Committee conducting interview has not selected him. Therefore, the demand for his appointment as a full-time lecturer on the basis of his work-charge and other grounds and without following all the procedure does not seem appropriate.
Therefore, in view of all the aforesaid facts, the Department is of clear opinion that the demand of applicant Shri Mehta is not admissible. As ordered, it is requested to proceed further accordingly.”
3.3 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner approached the Gujarat Affiliated College Service Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) by filing an application being Application No.76 of 1996. The respondent No.4 was the selected candidate in the said selection process pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. However, by way of interim relief, one seat was kept vacant till the Application No.76 of 1996 and Application No.12 of 1997, were decided together. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 12.01.2007, allowed the Application No.12 of 19
