- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) These appeals by a member of the Executive Committee of Management and two Department Heads of Ismail National Girls' Postgraduate College, are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 5869 of 1985 and Civil Miscellaneous Review Application No. NIL of 1996. The High court allowed the writ petition filed by Dr Pravesh Soti, respondent 1 herein, and directed the College Management and Meerut University to consider her case for regularisation and to allow her to resume duties after passing such an order. The High court further directed them to pay her arrears of salary from 1/3/1985. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the High court, the present appellants had filed a review application before the High court but it was dismissed on the ground that they did not have locus standi to file such an application.
(3.) The facts leading to this litigation are as follows: Appellant 4, Smt Urmila Agrawal was working as a Hindi Lecturer in the said College in the year 1982. She proceeded on leave for a short duration. The College Management, therefore, invited applications for appointment of a Lecturer in her leave vacancy. Out of 7 applicants, Dr Pravesh Soti was selected by the Selection Committee and the College Management by a resolution dated 4/10/1982 resolved to appoint her. In the letter of appointment dated 15/10/1982, it was stated that she was appointed on ad hoc basis for six months only and that the said appointment was purely temporary and against the leave vacancy of Smt Agrawal. It was also stated that the appointment was liable to be terminated before expiry of the said duration in case Smt Agrawal resumed her duty earlier. Pursuant to this letter of appointment. respondent 1 joined the College on 2/11/1982. Mrs 622 Agrawal was then awarded Teacher Fellowship by the UGC for a period of three years and, therefore, on her request she was granted further leave for a period of three years from 2/5/1983. In view of this extension in the leave vacancy, appointment of respondent 1 was also extended up to 1/5/1986 on the same terms and conditions. This extension was approved by the authorities concerned. Mrs Agrawal completed her course earlier and, therefore, wrote to the College Management that she would resume her duties on 20/2/1985. On receipt of this letter, the College Management wrote to respondent 1 that as Mrs Agrawal was to resume duty on 20/2/1985 her appointment would come to an end automatically on that day and, for that reason, her services would stand terminated with effect from 20/2/1985. On receiving this notice. respondent 1 made a representation to the College Management to continue her in service so as to avoid any break in service and to make a proposal to the Vice-Chancellor for regularising her ad hoc appointment, as one lecturer was required to be appointed for the newly- sanctioned MA Hindi classes. The College Management did not accept this request and resolved to postpone its consideration. Therefore, respondent 1 again sent a representation on 27/2/1985 to continue her in service and appoint her substantively by resorting to the provision contained in Section 31 (3 (b) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with effect from 1/7/1984 as she had already completed by then two years and four months in service. The College Management forwarded it with its recommendation to the Vice-Chancellor for his approval. On 29/3/1985, the University wrote to the College to send a copy of the resolution of the Management appointing her as a lecturer. As no such resolution was passed, the College Management did not take any action. Meanwhile on 28/2/1985, services of respondent 1 were discontinued as Mrs Agrawal resumed on that date. Respondent I, therefore, on 30/4/1985 filed a writ petition in the High court for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents (sic appellants) to appoint her under Section 31 (3 (b) of the Act and also for quashing the order of termination of her service.;