Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The Institute Of Human Resource ... vs Mahesh G on 15 April, 2019
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, M.R. Shah
ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.13 SECTION XI-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9055/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-07-
2018 in WA No. 488/2018 passed by the High Court Of Kerala At
Ernakulam)
THE INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (IHRD)Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MAHESH G Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. )
Date : 15-04-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Roy Abraham, Adv.
Ms. Reena Roy, Adv.
Ms. Seema Jain, Adv.
Mr. Akhil Abraham, Adv.
Mr. Himinder Lal, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The respondent was appointed as Technician Grade II in the Petitioner-institute since 01.11.2000. The Governing Body of the Petitioner resolved to reserve 10% of the vacancies for internal candidates. The quota of 10% was increased to 20% by an order dated 29.10.2009. An advertisement was issued on 20.01.2010 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Lecturers in Computer Science under the 20% internal quota. The Signature Not Verified respondent applied for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date: 2019.04.16 16:33:08 IST Reason: Computer Science.
1 Another advertisement was issued by the Petitioner on 27.01.2011 for appointment to the post of Lecturers in Electronic Science under 20% internal quota. The last date for filing applications was fixed as 25.02.2011. An amendment was made to the Special Rules by the Governing Body of the Petitioner on 10.05.2011 deleting the quota earmarked for the internal candidates w.e.f. 07.02.2011. In view of the amendment to the Special Rules, the Petitioner decided not to proceed with the selection process pursuant to the notification dated 27.01.2011 for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Electronic Science.
Appointments were made to the four posts of Lecturer in Computer Science pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.01.2010. The respondent filed a writ petition seeking a direction to fill up the vacancies of Lecturers in Computer Science and Lecturers in Electronic Science as per the Rules that existed prior to the amendment. No direction was given in respect of the filling up of the vacancies of Lecturer in Electronic Science as the Petitioner dropped the selection for the said post in view of the amendment to the Special Rules. However, the learned Single Judge directed to consider the claim of the respondent for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Computer Science in accordance with Rules prior to the amendment.
The Petitioner filed a Writ Appeal and informed the Division Bench that all the four existing vacancies for Lecturers in Computer Science have already been filled up. The 2 Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the Petitioner in respect of the appointment to the post of Lecturer in Computer Science. The learned Division Bench accepted the contention of the Petitioner that there is no vacancy for the post of Lecturer in Computer Science and on that basis, set aside the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to consider the respondent for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Computer Science.
However, the Division Bench directed the petitioner to proceed further on the basis of the advertisement dated 27.01.2011 and make appointments in accordance with the Recruitment Rules that were applicable on the date of issuance of the notification.
Mr. Roy Abraham, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the respondent did not file an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Moreover, according to him, the question of proceeding with the notification dated 27.01.2011 does not arise as the Governing Body of the Petitioner-institute has already decided to drop the selection to the post of Lecturer in Electronic Science in view of the amendment to the Special Rules. A careful scrutiny of the judgment of the High Court does not indicate such a point being argued before the High Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this Special Leave Petition and approach the High Court to file a review petition and to bring to the notice of the Division Bench the fact that the Petitioner has dropped the selection to the post of Lecturer in Electronic 3 Science pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.01.2011.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the High Court to file a review petition.
(GEETA AHUJA) (KAILASH CHANDER)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
4