AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner in this writ application has prayed to regularise the service of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in the Department of Tribal and Regional Language "Ho" and pay salary in the regular scale.
Petitioner claims that she is teaching regional language "Ho" in the Ranchi University since 1992. Petitioner claims that she is working against vacant and sanctioned post. Petitioner's claim is that in 1996 an advertisement was issued by the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Services Commission for appointment of Lecturer in different constituent colleges in various subjects including that of tribal and regional languages. There were 5
(five) vacant posts for regional and tribal language "HO". Petitioner applied pursuant to the said advertisement, but no regular appointment was made.
Petitioner preferred a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 1728 of 2000(R).
The said writ application was disposed of on 03.01.2002 with a direction to the Commission to send recommendation for the candidates, who have participated in the interview, expeditiously and on receipt of such recommendation, there was a direction to appoint successful candidate. It is stated that nothing happened thereafter.
Again, an advertisement was published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, inviting applications for appointment in different subjects including that of regional language "HO". The said advertisement was numbered as 1 of 2007. From perusal of the said advertisement, one can understand that there are four vacant posts for lecturer in "HO" language.
Petitioner applied and was called for interview. As per the petitioner, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission forwarded the merit list to the Universities on 01.07.2008. Even inspite of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner was not appointed. Petitioner's claim that she was regularly assigned several duties including that of evaluating the answer sheets and also functioned as examiner and question paper setter for the language "HO". She claims to be regularised in service and/or for a direction to issue appointment letter to the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement No. 1 of 2007.
University appeared and filed their counter affidavit. They admitted that an advertisement was issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission bearing advertisement No.1 of 2007, but, the same was cancelled. Thereafter a second advertisement 2 of 2017 was published, but in the second advertisement, the vacancy position was not mentioned and all the 9 regional languages were clubbed as one. As the advertisement was defective, the entire documents were returned by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. It is stated that a panel / merit list was also prepared and was sent by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission on 01.07.2008. The life of the said panel was only for one year and the same lapsed on 01.07.2009.
No appointment was made from the said panel.
After hearing the parties, I find that admittedly a merit list was prepared and a panel was sent to the University. The University did not appoint any person from the said panel. The life of the panel lapsed on 01.07.2009 . Thus, at this stage, no direction can be given to the respondents to appoint this petitioner or any person from a panel, which has lapsed way back on 01.07.2009. Further since the advertisement No.1 of 2007 has been cancelled, the respondents cannot be directed to make any appointment pursuant to the said advertisement. So far as regularisation of the petitioner is concerned, I find that as per the counter affidavit of the respondents, petitioner was teaching on honorarium basis since 1992. It is admitted that the petitioner was not appointed pursuant to any advertisement. Further, the appointment of the petitioner was not on basis of any recommendations of the Universities Service Commission. Thus, there can be no positive direction in favour of the petitioner to regularise her. If in future, any advertisement is published seeking for appointment of lecturers in the language of "HO", petitioner is at liberty to apply against the said advertisement if she fulfills the eligibility criteria.
I find no merit in this application, the same is dismissed, but with the aforesaid observation.