Thereafter, she passed M.Ed, in July 1975 from the aforesaid University, On 29th September, 1975, she was appointed as Evaluator in Sociology in the Directorate of Correspondence Courses in the aforesaid University.
Thereafter, Review Petition was filed by the aforesaid University, Dr. Abha Malhotra, the appellant, and Shivraj Singh Respondent No.
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.
On 20th February, 1987 she joined as lecturer.
The appellant appeared before the Selection Committee on 24th November, 1986, and on its recommendation, was appointed to the post of Lecturer.
Hence on 30th May, 1986, by another Resolution stipulated that they may be designated as Lecturers.
2 Dr. Abha Malhotra is admittedly the close relation of the Vice Chancellor of the University as it was found to be factually incorrect.
5 who was respondent No.
Dr. S.R. Mehrotra, Professor in History Department, respondent No.l 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 in Civil Appeal No, 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.
On 27th December, 1986, the Executive Council approved her selection and on 1st January, 1987, the appointment letter was received and finally on 4th February, 1987, the appellant joined as Lecturer in History.
16 in the writ petition and all the remaining appellants in Civil Appeal No.
These appeals, accordingly, are being disposed of by means of this companymon judgment.
The Appellant in C.A. No.
1998 1 SCR 470 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MISRA, J. The aforesaid three appeals raise a companymon question whether the appointment of the Evaluators and Research Associates as Lecturers in the Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla was valid or number?
Since then they are working as such.
Neither in the writ petition such allegations were made number there was any material on record from which such fact companyld be inferred.
The said observation came on the basis of the submission made by companynsel only.
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.
University Education Commission December 1948 August 1949 popularly known as the Report of the Radhakrishnan Commission, VoI, I. 1949 , p 79.
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, whose appointments had number been challenged.
13707/96 Dr. Mrs. Meera Massey did her M.A. in Sociology in the year 1973.
13709/96 were also impleaded as respondents and their appointments were also challenged on the ground of violation of ordinance No.
Dr. Meera Massey one of the other appellants did number file review as she already preferred Special Leave Petition No, 5235/95 C.A. 13707/96 .
13709/96.
Some of them have already been appointed as Readers whose ease is number in issue in these appeals.
Admittedly all the appellants were working as Research Associate when the said Resolutions were passed.
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.
In 1976 she did her M. Phil, in Education and stood first in the University and thus was awarded gold medal for the same.
All the appellants in Civil Appeal No.
13709/96 were initially appointed as Research Associates.
However, the Court refused to review other part of the judgment which held her Dr. Abha Malhotra appointment as illegal and violative of Ordinance 35.
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.
She did her Ph.
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 fact, she did both M. Phil.
In 1981 she got the degree of Ph.D. in Education.
35.11 of the University as they were also number appointed after due advertisement.
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 Correspondence Courses.
Later, they appeared before such Selection Committee and, on its recommendation, were appointed as Lecturers in the year 1986.
The Statutory Selection in Committee met on 30th October, 1986, found the appellant companypetent to be a Lecturer.
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.
They have been working as such for the last about nine years.
The appellant in C.A. No.
and Ph.D. in the field of Education while being Evaluator as aforesaid 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.
Consequently, the appellants in Civil Appeal No.
On 29th May, 1987 she was companyfirmed as such.
D in the year 1981 in History.
Respondent Nos.
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, In review the High Court deleted the Observation, that Respondent No.
The High Court by means of impugned judgment quashed the appointment of the aforesaid two appellants and Respondent No, 5 both On the ground of violation of Ordinance 35.11 and favouritism and other illegalities and appointment of remaining appellants were quashed as it was in violation of Ordinance 35.11.
