The main legal point established in the judgment is that the employment of Guest Lecturers without appointing regular Lecturers is illegal and opposed to statutory provisions.

1. The second respondent runs Arts and Science College at Gowriwakkam, Chennai, which is affiliated to the first respondent – University. The college is an aided college as far as the courses that are offered during Shift–I, i.e. from 08.30 a.m. to 01.30 p.m. That is, the teaching and non-teaching staff employed in Shift–I are paid salary by the Government. The second respondent also conduct courses during Shift–II, i.e. from 01.30 p.m. to 06.15 p.m. The courses conducted in the Shift–II are on self-financing basis. The second respondent obtained approval from the first respondent for conducting courses both during Shift–I and Shift–II. Without getting approval, the second respondent cannot conduct any course. If the second respondent conducts any course without approval, the students could not be admitted for the examinations conducted by the first respondent-University and the first respondent - University cannot confer degree to those students.

2. The petitioner is a Post Graduate in M.A. Tamil and M.A. Linguistic. She also possesses M.Phil., in Tamil Literature and she is undergoing Ph.D., in Tamil Literature in the first respondent – University. According to the petitioner, she was employed as a Guest Lecturer, on hourly basis, at the rate of Rs.100/- per hour from February 2007 in the second respondent – college, during Shift – I. While so, as her husband contested in the election for the post of Trustee in the second respondent – college and lost the election, the petitioner was denied employment from 17.02.2009.

3. The second respondent - college published an advertisement in the newspaper on 14.06.2009 calling for applications to fill the post of Guest Lecturers in various departments, including Tamil department, for Shift–I. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the advertisement and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to reinstate her in service with continuity of service with backwages and other attendant benefits.

4. Notice of motion was ordered on 06.07.2009. The second respondent filed counter affidavit. The second respondent also filed additional counter affidavit.

5. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was employed only as a "Guest Lecturer". A Guest Lecturer is not treated as a Lecturer recruited to the service in accordance with the Rules. She is not recruited against a regular vacancy, enabling her to claim benefits for the post. It is further stated that she gave lectures for 86 hours in the academic year 2007-2008 and she was paid Rs.8600/- as remuneration for the same. In the academic year 2008-2009, she gave lectures for 136 hours and she was paid Rs.13600/- as remuneration. Since there was no workload warranting her employment, she was not asked to give lectures after 17.02.2009 by the Head of the Department of Tamil Department. It is also stated in para 5 of the counter affidavit that the first respondent – University endorsed the action of the second respondent calling for applications through advertisement inviting "Guest Lecturers", as the same is not barred in any statute or law.

6. In the additional counter affidavit, it is stated that she is not qualified for appointment as Guest Lecturer as per the UGC norms, as she does not possess Ph.D. Though the advertisement was issued in the newspaper viz., "The Hindu" on 14.06.2009 by the second respondent - college for the post of Guest Lecturers in Tamil, in Shift–I, the post was not filled up, as the Head of the Department of Tamil Department informed the Management that there was no workload in the Department of Tamil. Hence, the second respondent dropped the selection of Guest Lecturers in Tamil Department, as advertised. It is further stated that the petitioner cannot question the validity of the advertisement.

7. Heard Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.B.Ramamoorthy, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.N.Thiagarajan, l