AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents.
The counsel for the first Respondent has filed a memo seeking dismissal of the writ petition as having become infructuous.
It is the short case of the Respondent that though the petition was filed challenging the rejection of approval of the appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Principal in the second Respondent-institution, the Petitioner has subsequently tendered resignation to the post of Principal of the second Respondent-institution and the same has been accepted by the General Council. The counsel for the first Respondent therefore, would submit that the petition has been rendered infructuous and all the reliefs sought by ''he Petitioner are no longer relevant.
However, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner would seek to contend that the very fact whether the approval of the appointment of the Petitioner could have been denied is itself a disputed question, since the rejection of the approval of appointment of the Petitioner is on the ground that she lacked ten years experience in teaching. On the other hand, the learned Counsel would place reliance on several decisions of the Supreme Court to contend that, it is the experience which is relevant and not the mathematical calculation of the period of experience and in that view of the matter, on facts, the Petitioner lacking one year one month, the learned Counsel however, would submit that the Petitioner makes up for the lack of teaching experience, if any, by virtue of immense experience in research and therefore, it would be in line with, the law laid down by the apex court that the Petitioner''s experience in all fields be taken into account while either approving or disapproving her appointment as a Principal.
The learned Counsel would further submit that the resignation tendered by the, Petitioner was on account of the circumstances beyond her control as she was faced with health and other domestic problems and it is not on account of any academic disqualification that she had tendered her resignation. The Petitioner would soon seek to pursue her career and if the order rejecting approval of appointment of the Petitioner is allowed to stand, she would be faced with a permanent disability of her experience, with the second Respondent -institution, not at all being taken into consideration and it is in that vein that the learned Counsel for the Petitioner would seek to contend that the petition is yet maintainable to address the circumstance as to whether the Respondent-University was justified in not approving the appointment of the Petitioner, notwithstanding the law to the contrary as laid down by the apex court.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner may have substance in her contention that the rejection of the approval of the Petitioner''s appointment'' is a debatable question. Since the Petitioner does not seek reinstatement as principal of the second Respondent-institution, but only seeks to contend that she may pursue her career elsewhere and the services rendered by the Petitioner with the second Respondent-institution may be given due credence. This shall be a question which is left open. If a controversy should arise as to any future employer of the Petitioner denying the Petitioner the benefit of service that she has rendered, ''it is possible that such a contention to be accepted and considered in an appropriate petition. Insofar as the present petition is concerned, the same is rendered infructuous since the Petitioner has resigned from the services of the second Respondent. Hence, without prejudice to the merits of the claim of the Petitioner insofar as The experience being taken into account for any future employment, the petition stands disposed of.