Thereafter, she passed M.Ed.
She was appointed as research Associate in the department of History as the said post was lying vacant and her appointment was approved by the Executive Council in the meeting held on 22nd May.
These appeals, accordingly, are being disposed of by means of this companymon judgment.
Thereafter, on 30th May, 1986, vide Resolution on the same day it was decided to regularise the Evaluators and Research Associates in the existing designation and scale with immediate effect and it was also decided that they were to be designated as lecturers.
The High Court by means of impugned judgment quashed the appointment of the aforesaid two appellants and Respondent No.
hence on 30th May, 1986, by another Resolution stipulated that they may be designated as Lecturers.
35.11 of the University as they were also number appointed after due advertisement.
Dr. S.R. Mehrotra, Professor in History Department, respondent No.1 in all these appeals, filed a writ petition assailing the appointments of the aforesaid two appellants and Dr. Shivraj Singh who is respondent No.
5 both on the ground of violation of Ordinance 35.11 and favoritism and other illegalities and appointment of remaining appellants were quashed as it was in violation of Ordinance 35.11.
On 27th December, 1986, the Executive Council approved her selection and on st January, 1987, the appointment letter was received and finally on 4th February, 1987, the appellant joined as Lecturer in History.
Dr. Meera Massey one of the other appellants did number file review as she already preferred Special leave Petition No.
On 20th February, 1987 she joined as lecturer.
Respondent Nos.
so far as the case of appellant Dr. Meera Massey is companycerned, the companytention by Dr. Mehrotra is that she was number even approved by the Statutory Selection Committee, as it did number select her as a Lecturer in Education as she was only Evaluator in Sociology.
Their services will be regularised after undergoing the formality of selection through the Statutory Selection Committee.
The appellant in C.A. No.
Admittedly, all the appellants were working as Research Associate when the said Resolutions were passed.
So far as the review by the University pertaining to the case of one of the aforesaid appellants.
Dr. Meera Massey, it was held It is rightly observed that the University failed to place before the Division Bench the original proceedings of the Selection Committee which would have put an end to the companytroversy whether she was interviewed for appointment as Lecturer in Education but from the totality of material on record, especially the resolution dated 27th December, 1986, the only companyclusion possible is that she was number companysidered and recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment as lecturer in Education irrespective of her possessing the qualification and experience for the said post may be because she was working as Evaluator in sociology at the relevant time.
Since then they are working as such.
While companysidering the case of Shivraj Singh, Respondent No.
5 in Civil Appeal No.
5 who was respondent No.
The Statutory Select in Committee met on 30th October, 1986, found the appellant companypetent to be a Lecturer.
13707/96 Dr. Mrs. Meera Massey did her M.A. in Sociology in the year 1973.
The appellant appeared before the Selection Committee on 24th November, 1986, and on its recommendation, was appointed to the post of Lecturer.
thereafter, Review Petition was filed by the aforesaid University, Dr. Abha Malhotra, the appellant, and Shivraj Singh Respondent No.
Some of them have already been appointed as Readers whose case is number in issue in these appeals.
13709/96, challenged the locus standing of Dr. S.R. Mehrotra who filed the writ petition in the High Court.
Thereafter to decide the status and future of the Evaluators and Research Associates, the Vice Chancellor of the University appointed a Committee which gave its report which was companysidered by the Council on 18th January, 1986.
D. in Education while being Evaluator.examination in July, 1975, M.Phil in Education form this very University and stood first and awarded gold medal and later did even Ph.
Research Associates and Evaluators be designated as lecturers.
All the appellants in Civil Appeal No.
4 and 15, namely, Shri S.C. Bhadwal and Shri Ram Sharma in the writ petition, had neither filed Review Petition number special leave Petition before this Court.
Their suitability for the post of Lecturers was to be ascertained through the statutory Selection Committee companyfining the selection among the incumbent working on the post of Research Associates.
13709/96 were initially appointed as Research Associates.
The case of the appellant is that Research Associate in various other departments were approved by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 29th July, 1982, and 25/26 November.
She did her Ph.
On 29th September, 1975, she was appointed as Evaluator in Sociology in the Directorate of Correspondence Courses in the aforesaid University.
In the companynter affidavit filed by the university it was revealed that there are 12 other Research Associates similarly situated who had been appointed as lecturers.
The Executive Council thereafter in December 1986, on the basis of the observations of the Selection Committee, appointed her as lecturer in Education in the directorate of companyrespondence Courses.
13708/96, namely, Dr. Abha Malhotra was initially appointed as Research Associate on 22nd May, 1983, and her selection was through a Selection Committee companysisting of Dean of Art Faculty with two outsiders and two internal experts.
in July 1975 for the aforesaid University.
The Executive Council as aforesaid on the 30th May, 1986, decided to regularise all the Evaluators with immediate effect for their appointment on regular basis as lecturers selecting them through the Statutory Selection Committee.
Later, they appeared before such selection Committee and, on its recommendation, were appointed as Lecturers in the year 1986.
They have been working a such for the last about nine years.
In 1976 she did her M. Phil, in Education and stood first in the University and thus was awarded gold medal for the same.
The appellant in C.A. No.
Since they were working for a long period the Executive Council of the aforesaid University by their resolution dated 16th January, 1986, declared the cadre of Research Associate as wasting cadre.
13709/96 were also impleaded as respondents and their appointments were also challenged on the ground of violation of ordinance No.
In fact, she did both M. Phil, and Ph.D. in the field of Education while being Evaluator as aforesaid .
13709/96, as Lecturer both on the ground that it is companytrary to the Resolution of the Executive Council and also against the Ordinance of the aforesaid University.
Whose appointments in Civil Appeal No.
In 1981 she got the degree of PH.D. in Education.
16 in the writ petition and all the remaining appellants in Civil Appeal No.
On 29th May, 1987 she was companyfirmed as such.
5235/95 C.A. 13707/96 .
D in the year 1981 in History.
13709/96.
Misra, J. The aforesaid three appeals raise a companyman question whether the appointment of the Evaluators and Research Associates as Lecturers in the Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla was valid or number?
