It is number permissible for the petitioner to seek the same relief again by filing a fresh petition.
Background facts The Appellant applied for appointment in the companylege, respondent No.1, on the post of English Lecturer, pursuant to a vacancy which had arisen by leaving of an English Lecturer after the Ist term.
As above VIDYAVARDHINIS Annasaheb Vartak College of Arts, Kedarnath Malhotra College of Commerce S. Andrades College of Science Affiliated to the University of Mumbai AND Junior Colleges Vasai Road West 401 202, Distt.
Registrar Spl.
1914 of 1999 dated 13th April, 2005 which has taken a view that it is number necessary that after de reservation, that post must be re advertised but it is open to the Government to relax the companydition, to take the appropriate decision and companymunicate the same to respondent No.3.
Rule made absolute accordingly.
Sd F.I.Rebello,J. Sd S.P. Kukday,J. When the appellant came to know even at the time of hearing of the review petition an incorrect statement had been made, the appellant filed fresh Writ Petition No.4851 of 2005.
Vide appointment letter dated 15.7.1994, the Appellant was appointed as full time Lecturer in the companylege for one academic year as per the advertisement.
I request you to look into the matter and do the needful.
3rd August, 2005 C The present petition is in the nature of a review of the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.
4851 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petitions and review petition filed by the Appellant.
The nil report for appointment to the post of lecturer in English was accepted by the University vide letter dated 1.11.1999.
65 of 2005 and final order dated 3.8.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No.
When the said review petition came for hearing on 5.5.2005, the University made another incorrect statement that though the advertisement had been issued, numberinterviews had been held because of the stay order of the High Court.
One of the posts was the post of English Lecturer, but the same was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate.
The Petitioner pursuant to the sixth advertisement if numberbackward class candidate is selected to be companytinued and the petitioners services will number be terminated.
Vide order dated 12.7.1999, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court granted interim relief to the appellant i.e. the appellant was number to be terminated from services.
Therefore, the Appellant was once again appointed on temporary basis on the said post for one academic year on 19.7.1996.
No order as to companyts.
In the meantime, the appellant had approached the High Court of Bombay by way of Writ Petition No.
In the meantime, a similar matter of one Mrs. Madhuri Srivastava came up for hearing before the Bombay High Court.
The report of the Selection Committee Meeting was forwarded by the College to the University on 30.7.1999 clearly mentioning that numberbackward class category candidate had reported for interview in English language.
Sd Judge Sd Judge The appellant filed the present appeal by way of three special leave petitions challenging all the three orders passed by the High Court including the first order dated 13.4.2005 passed in W.P. No.
The Appellant was, therefore, once again appointed on temporary basis on the said post for a period of one academic year.
For the 5th academic year i.e. 1998 1999, the post of English Lecturer was again advertised as reserved post for Scheduled Caste candidate.
If on the advertisement being issued numbercandidate from reserved category is available, respondents to permit the petitioner to companytinue in the post presently held by her.
When the appellant came to know that an incorrect statement has been made by the University that number6th advertisement has been published, the appellant filed Review Petition No.
The appellant joined as Lecturer and has been working since then.
However, numberScheduled Caste candidate applied for and reported for interview.
The College advertised a number of vacant posts for the academic year 1994 1995 on 29.4.1994 by way of newspaper publication.
The problem of number filling up of reserved seats in Government and Government aided companyleges were subject matter of various decisions by the Government.
However, the High Court refused to entertain the fresh writ petition on 3.8.2005 and passed the following order CORAM A.P. Shah D.Y. Chandrachud,JJ.
No backward class candidate applied for the said post.
1914 of 1999 for companyfirmation of her services as numbercandidate from backward class had appeared for even an interview after six years.
It was clearly mentioned in the advertisement that this was the 5th advertisement.
The University duly vetted the said draft advertisement and returned the same to the College on 7.4.1999 for publication.
Sd F.I. Rebello,J. Sd S.P. Kukday,J. It is relevant to mention here that on the very same day, the very same Bench of the Bombay High Court disposed of two more writ petitions by two similarly situated lecturers of the very same companylege.
22356 22358 OF 2005 Dr. AR.
The College filed the companynter affidavit bringing the companyrect facts to the numberice of the High Court.
Thus as per Government resolution and the University circular, 6th advertisement with interchangeability clause had to be issued.
J U D G M E N T Arising Out of SLP C NO.
This Court vide order dated 24.10.2005 issued numberice to the respondent and granted status quo.
For the 4th academic year again the post of Lecturer of English was advertised by College as reserved post for Scheduled Caste Candidate on 28.4.1997.
The High Court found that the 6th advertisement had been issued, but however, wrongly found that the interviews were number companyducted.
If the order be adverse it is number to be acted upon for a period of twelve weeks after the companymunication of the decision of respondent No.4 by respondent No.1 to the petitioner.
Respondent No.4 companysidering the clause for de reservation and companysidering the judgment of this companyrt in W.P. No.
However, numberscheduled caste category candidate applied for and reported for interview.
There shall be numberorder as to companyts.
On the draft advertisement being received and after verifying the same and if earlier there had been five advertisement already issued by the University to permit the respondent No.1 to issue the advertisement based on interchangeability.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Dr. S.S. Kelkar Principal Encl.
The directions issued by the High Court read as follows Respondent No.1 within four weeks from today to forward to respondent No.2 a draft advertisement based on interchangeability.
1914 of 1999.
Three general category candidates applied out of which the Appellant was selected and recommended for appointment by the Six Members Selection Committee on 11.7.1994.
The Petitioner, in fact, sought review of the said order by filing a review application which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 5th May, 2005.
During the pendency of the special leave petitions, the University vide its letter dated 6.9.2005 acknowledged the facts that it would number be proper to issue a fresh advertisement and, therefore, requested the College to send a proposal for de reservation of the post.
As stated above, the interviews were held on 5.7.1999 much before the interim order of the High Court on 12.7.1999.
1914 of 1999, final order dated 5.5.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Review Petition No.
Therefore, the appellant was once again appointed on temporary basis on the said post for one academic year on 15.7.1998.
The draft of the said advertisement for the academic year 1999 2000 was forwarded by the College to the University on 3.4.1999.
Therefore, the appellant was once again appointed on temporary basis on the said post for one academic year on 24.7.1997.
The letter dated 6.9.2005 reads as follows UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI No.
The above three Special Leave Petitions were filed against the judgment and final order dated 13.4.2005 in Writ Petition No.
However, numberScheduled caste category candidate applied for and reported for interview.
Accordingly, the 6th advertisement was published by the College in Maharashtra Times on 13.4.1999 clearly mentioning that the post was being advertised for the 6th time on interchangeability basis as per Government Rules.
The University had number taken this stand as the report of the interview was sent to the University and the University accepted the said report.
The order dated 5.5.2005 passed by the High Court in Review Petition No.65 of 2005 reads as follows The review is based on the companytention that six advertisements for the post of Lecturer in English having interchangeability clause was advertised on 13.4.1999 and companysidering that directions given by this Court in the Judgment dated 13.4.2005 requires to be reviewed.
The advertisement, however, provided that in case the backward class candidate was number available, then a candidate from the general category would be companysidered for appointment on year to year basis.
29 /6115/2005 Dated 6th September,2005 To The Principal Annasaheb Vartak College of Arts, Commerce and Science, Vasai Road, District Thane W 401 202 Sub Approval for advertisement Madam, This is in reference to your letter No.
The University after companyplying with the procedure to forward the same to respondent No.4.
Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted.
Cell, University of Mumbai, Mumbai 400 001.
In both the cases, the 6th advertisement had been issued and since the teachers had been working for a number of years, the High Court held that there was numberneed for fresh advertisement and, therefore, directed that the petitioners in those writ petitions, will be treated as permanent.
Thane Ref.
After the sixth advertisement, if numbercandidate belonging to the backward class is available, respondent No.1 to send representation to respondent No.3 to de reserve the post.
AVC Advt/292/2005 06 dated 18th May, 2005.
AVC DER/1100/2006 07 Date 24/8/2006 To The Dy.
As such the Management companyld number have proceeded with interview and by letter of 30.7.1999, companysidering the order of this Court issued letter of appointment in favour of the Petitioner herein.
Considering the above, as the interviews companyld number be companyducted in terms of the sixth advertisement, we do number find this to be a fit case to review the order dated 13.4.2005.
With the above directions, application stands disposed of.
It is clear from the advertisement annexed to the aforesaid letter for the post of Lecturer English was advertised with interchangeability clause on 13th April, 1999 in Maharashtra Times newspaper and accordingly interview was also held on 5th July, 1999.
The appellant was duly interviewed by the local selection companymittee and was appointed as full time lecturer in English on 22.11.1993 on temporary basis for 2nd term subject to the approval of the University.
