The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a teacher to regularisation and equal pay for equal work under Section 31 (3) (c) of the U. P. State Universities Act, as well as the court's authority to judge suitability for regular appointment in exceptional circumstances.

( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed praying for a mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner as lecturer in Home Science in the Allahabad University under Section 31 (3) (c) of the U. P. State Universities Act.

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 3 ) IN paragraph 3 of the writ petition, it is alleged that there is a department of Home Science in the Allahabad University in which there are two sanctioned posts of lecturers and one post of reader. As regards the posts of lecturer in Home Science, one fell vacant in June, 1989 on the retirement of Mrs. S. Tiwari and the other post fell vacant in June, 1991 on the retirement of mrs. Rohini Bhatt. It is further stated that one post of Reader in Home Science is lying vacant since 1985 after the retirement of Dr. Radha Pant.

( 4 ) IN paragraph 5 of the writ petition, it is alleged that one post of lecturer in Home Science which fell vacant in June, 1989 was advertised vide advertisement No. 6 of 1989 but unfortunately, the Selection Committee did not meet. After one more vacancy arose, both the posts of lecturer in Home Science were advertised in 1991. Thereafter in June, 1993, two posts of permanent lecturer in Home Science were again advertised vide advertisement No. 6 of 1993 without considering the claim of the petitioner for regularisation under Section 31 (3) (c) of the act. Again the posts were advertised in 1999 ignoring the claim of the petitioner for regularisation but the selection was deferred due to the Chancellors order regarding the petitioners claim for regularisation. It is alleged that all the posts in Home Science are still lying vacant and selections were not held despite these advertisements. In the absence of any regular staff member in the discipline of Home Science, the petitioner and one Dr. Meena Darbari were called to teach as Guest Lecturer. The petitioner is continuously teaching since September, 1989 and Dr. Meena Darbari since 1991 as Guest Lecturers. The petitioner has applied against all the aforesaid advertisements despite her claim for regularisation. The petitioner has possessed necessary qualification for appointment as lecturer in Home Science vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition (which is her bio-data ).

( 5 ) IN paragraph 7 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the petitioner has been teaching Home science to B. Sc. Home Science students right from September 1989. She has also been discharging all other functions of regular lecturer, e. g. , setting question papers, examining answer books, working as internal and external examiner of practical examinations, doing invigilation work, etc. Although her designation is Guest Lecturer but she has been discharging all the duties of regular lecturer.

( 6 ) IN paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the petitioner has been sharing the entire workload of teaching three year degree course of B. Sc. The teaching load on the petitioner all along has been more than 18 periods/lectures per week which is more than the normal prescribed workload of regular lecturers. The University continued to give admission to students of B. Sc. Home Science throughout. There are more than 100 students studying in the three years b. Sc. Home Science degree course in each session. The guest teachers including the petitioner were paid a nominal remuneration of Rs. 60 per lecture like a bonded labour awaiting regularisation. She has been teaching for more than a decade and it is alleged that the University still continues to exploit her by taking her service without paying the bare minimum suited to the dignity of a lecturer. The petitioner has made several representations to the University for regularisation but to no avail.

( 7 ) IN paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the University set up a Committee consisting of some senior teachers of the University for looking into the grievance of the petitioner and other guest lecturers.