Illegal appointment

Ramesh Kumar (Querist) 26 April 2021 This query is : Resolved
As per notification No. GAII/C1/2100/09 dated 28/04/2010 a temporary post of Assistant Professor of Mathematics was notified by the University of Calicut. At the time of this notification itself a permanent vacancy of Lecturer/ Assistant Professor was available in the Department of Mathematics, due to the retirement of Professor X.
Since the post was purely temporary many prospective applicants might have restrained from applying for the post. A school teacher was the only applicant for this post. An interview was conducted by the university and the candidate was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Mathematics on temporary basis in lien vacancy of a professor Y. Within four months she was regularized against the existing post of Professor X. Is this regularization illegal?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Message likes : 1 times

Quick Summary

This discussion questions the legality of a temporary Assistant Professor appointment at the University of Calicut. A temporary post was advertised, but a permanent vacancy already existed. The sole applicant, a school teacher, was appointed temporarily and then regularised within four months against the permanent vacancy. The core question is whether this regularisation was illegal. Arguments suggest it might not be, citing the use of rotation/roster registers for temporary regularisations. However, the applicability of the Umadevi case, which denies a fundamental right to absorption for temporary staff, is also raised, with a lawyer's advice recommended for definitive answers.

kavksatyanarayana (Expert) 26 April 2021
How can you say the temporary vacancy arises due to the retirement of Professor X? The University calls for applications from eligible candidates as per their Rotation Registers/Roster Registers. As per the records of any institution/organisation/Government, the temporary candidates will be regularised basing on the Rotation/Roster registers. So no illegal regularisation.

Ramesh Kumar (Querist) 27 April 2021
While deciding the issues involved, the Court cited the judgment State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors.[2], wherein the court held as under:-
“There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Theycannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequal’s as equals.“

P. Venu (Expert) 27 April 2021
No definite suggestion is possible unless the exact word of the Notification is perused. The fact that post was notified to be temporary does not entail that the ratio in the Umadevi case could be applicable.

H.M.Patnaik (Expert) 28 April 2021
You may get in touch with any experienced lawyer dealing in Service disputes locally with connected records or resolving your doubts.

Message likes : 1 times

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries