ASHOK KUMAR MATHUR,J. - (1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 1st November, 1983 and has prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in Hindi.
(2.) THE petitioner applied in the University of Jodhpur for the post of Lecturer in Hindi. The petitioner was intervewed on 16th October, 1980 and she was found suitable and the Selection Committee recommended the petitioner for appointment. The recommendations were placed before the Syndicate. The Syndicate vide its Resolution No. 94 approved the recommendation of the Selection Committee, subject to review the work load position. It was further observed that the appointment of persons from amongst the selected candidates will be made on the basis of work load position and as per the needs of the University. When the petitioner was not given the appointment on account of lack of work load in the University, she filed a writ petition challenging the action of the University by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1520 of 1981. This Court by the order dated 14th July, 1983 directed the Vice Chancellor that he will consider the work load position and after objectively assessing the position he should consider the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer. With these observations the writ petition of the petitioner was disposed of. In pursuance of this direction the Vice Chancellor considered the work load position and found that there was no work load at that time so as to absorb the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Hindi. He passed a detailed order (Annexure 1) dated 1st November, 1983. It is this order which has been challenged by filing the present writ petition. I have heard both the learned Counsel at length and examined the factual aspect of it in detail in order to, see that if any injustice has been done to the petitioner. After examining the factual aspect I am of the view that the order of the Vice Chancellor does not warrant any interference. Mr. Parekh has raised a preliminary objection that this writ petition is not maintainable because when the first writ petition was disposed of it was directed that the Vice Chancellor should examine all the aspects, therefore, all the contentions raised in that writ petition which are identical in this writ petition cannot be raised. Secondly he submitted that this writ petition involves intricate questions of fact, therefore, this Court should not interfere in this matter. So far as first preliminary objection is concerned I am afraid it is not well founded. Simply because this court by the order dated 14th July, 1983 has remanded the matter to the Vice Chancellor it will not ipso facto follow that the contentions raised by the petitioner stand disposed of. So far as second objection regarding questions of fact are concerned, it is true that it does involve complicated questions of fact but there is no bar for this court for doing justice, it can look into factual aspect if situation so warrants. But in view of the fact that I am satisfied that all questions of fact in this case do not warrant any interference, which I shall deal here in after.
(3.) MR . Mridul, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the condition of work load is irrelevant. In similar department when work load was not there several persons were appointed, therefore, similar treatment should be given to the petitioner. The work load is available and for which he has referred number of documents.;