Registrar, University of Hyderabad & Anr. Vs. M.V. Santa Kumari
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1484 of 1998
Petitioner: Registrar, University of Hyderabad & Anr.
Respondent: M.V. Santa Kumari
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1484 of 1998
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 21, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Articles 226, 136 – Regularisation – Junior Office Assistant-cum-Typist – Working from 1990 to 1995 – Pursuant to High Court orders, services regularised against vacant post, subject to result of appeal – By this time, working for about a decade. Held that appointment made against clear vacancy, she must continue on the post.
(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the order made by the High Court by which the respondent is ordered to be regularised in the services of the appellant as Junior Office Assistant-cum-Typist. She had been appointed on 22.10.1990 in the said post for a term and her services were extended from time to time till January, 1995. In January, 1995 when her services were sought to be termi-nated, she approached the High Court seeking relief of regulari-sation of her services on the basis that she had continued from the year 1990 to 1995; that her services were of over five years; that the post was vacant; that there was absolutely no basis to terminate her services. Learned Single Judge gave the relief on that basis after examining some of the decisions of this Court in relation to regularisation of services. On appeal, the Division Bench affirmed that order, of course, after examining certain larger issues which really do not arise for consideration in this case.
2. It is brought to our notice now by Mr. Nageswara Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent that the services of the respondent have been regularised against one of the vacant posts available for Junior Office Assistant-cum-Typist in the University, pursu-ant to the orders made by the High Court, subject of course to the result of this appeal. When a vacant post is available in the University and the respondent has been accommodated in that post, though ostensibly to comply with the order made by the High Court, it could be seen that she had worked for more than five years at the time when she filed a petition in the High Court and now she has been in service for more than a decade, we do not think it would be appropriate to disturb that state of affairs. Although the University had passed the order on 17.4.1996, regu-larising her services, subject to result of this appeal, we make it clear that her appointment having been made against a clear vacancy, she must continue in the said post.
3. In view of these special features of this case, we see no reason to interfere with the order made by the High Court. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No orders as to costs.
1. This appeal is directed against the order made by the High Court by which the respondent is ordered to be regularised in the services of the appellant as Junior Office Assistant-cum-Typist. She had been appointed on 22.10.1990 in the said post for a term and her services were extended from time to time till January, 1995. In January, 1995 when her services were sought to be termi-nated, she approached the High Court seeking relief of regulari-sation of her services on the basis that she had continued from the year 1990 to 1995; that her services were of over five years; that the post was vacant; that there was absolutely no basis to terminate her services. Learned Single Judge gave the relief on that basis after examining some of the decisions of this Court in relation to regularisation of services. On appeal, the Division Bench affirmed that order, of course, after examining certain larger issues which really do not arise for consideration in this case.
2. It is brought to our notice now by Mr. Nageswara Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent that the services of the respondent have been regularised against one of the vacant posts available for Junior Office Assistant-cum-Typist in the University, pursu-ant to the orders made by the High Court, subject of course to the result of this appeal. When a vacant post is available in the University and the respondent has been accommodated in that post, though ostensibly to comply with the order made by the High Court, it could be seen that she had worked for more than five years at the time when she filed a petition in the High Court and now she has been in service for more than a decade, we do not think it would be appropriate to disturb that state of affairs. Although the University had passed the order on 17.4.1996, regu-larising her services, subject to result of this appeal, we make it clear that her appointment having been made against a clear vacancy, she must continue in the said post.
3. In view of these special features of this case, we see no reason to interfere with the order made by the High Court. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No orders as to costs.
