Sobha P.V. v. University of Calicut

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR** **FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933** ## **WP(C).No. 27831 of 2005(L)** **--------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **----------------------** **SOBHA P.V., G-18, CALICUT UNIVERSITY QUARTERS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., PIN-673 635.** **BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** **1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., PIN-673 635.** **2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., PIN-673 635.** **3. DR. MOLY KURUVILA, LECTURER, UNIVERSITY CENTRE FOR TEACHER EDUCATION (UCTE), NEAR GOVT.GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VAIKOM-686 141, KOTTAYAM DIST.** ## ***4. DR. V. USHA,** **"URAVU", OLIPRAM KADAVU ROAD, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST.** ( **DELETED)** ## **R4 IS DELETED VIDE RDER DTD. 16.8.2006 IN IA. 11450/2006.** **5. MINI SUKUMAR, "RAMANJALY", KOOTHATTUKULAM P.O., PIN-686 662, ERNAKULAM DIST.** **tss** ## **W.P.(C) NO.27831/2005** ## ***ADDL. R6 IMPLEDED.** **6. SONIA K.DAS, LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN'S STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITYP.O, PIN. 673 635.** ***ADDL. R6 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DTD. 16.8.2006 IN IA. 11450/2006.** **ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, CALICUT UTY FOR R1 & R2 SRI.E.S.ASHRAF, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY FOR R1 & R2 SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUTY UNIVERS FOR R1,2 R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM R5 BY ADV.SRI.K.JAJU BABU R6 BY ADVS.SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI, SMT.GISA SUSAN THOMAS.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON 18/11/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** ## **W.P.(C) NO.27831/2005** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** ## **P1:- COPY OF THE NET ELIGIBILITY TEST FOR LECTURESHIP IN WOMEN'S STUDIES.** **P2:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 38.5.2005 OF THE DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.** **P3:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATEMDTD. 16.5.2005 ISSUED BY THE PROGRAMME COORDINATOR, CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE (SUPPORTED B SC/ST/DEVELOPMENT DEPT. GOVT. OF KERALA), INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT KOZHIKODE.** **P4:- COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTIFICATION NO.GA.II/C1/2149/04 DTD. 18.4.05 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT.** **P5:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DT.D 31.5.2005 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT.** **P6:- COPY OF THE INTERVIEW MEMO DT. 8.8.05 FOR THE POST OF LECTURER.** **P7:- COPY OF THE INTERVIEW MEMO DTD 8.8.05 FOR THE POST OF READER.** **P8:- COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF LECTURER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC COUNCIL.** ## **P9:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP. 16620/2002.** **P10:- COPY OF THE MEMO GA II/FI/2269/05 DTD. 29.9.2005 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT SELECTING AND APPOINTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE POST OF READER IN WOMEN STUDIES.** **P11:- COPY OF THE MEMO NO.GAII/F1/2269/05 DTD. 29.9.05 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT SELECTING AND APPOINTING THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE POST OF LECTURER IN WOMEN STUDIES.** **P12:-COPY OF THE MEMO NO.GAII/F1/2269/05 DTD. 29.9.05 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT SELECTING AND APPOINTING THE ADDL.RESPONDENT NO. 6 TO THE OF LECTURER IN WOMEN STUDIES.** **P13:- COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED SELECTION TO THE POST OF DIRECTOR/PROFESSOR.** **P14:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SYNDICATE OF THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY ISSUED IN JULY 2007.** **P15:- COPY OF THE MEMO NO.GAII/CI/301/08 DT. 27.3.08 ISSUED BY CALICUT UNIVERSITY.** **tss** ## **W.P.(C) NO.27831/2005** **P15(a):- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.AD.E3/10045/05 DTD. 9.9.08 OF THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY.** ## **P16:- COPY OF THE M.SC DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF R-3.** **P17:- COPY OF THE M.ED DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF R-3.** **P18:- COPY OF THE PH.D DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF R-3.** **P19:- COPY OF THE TEACHING EXPERINECE CERTIFICATE OF R3.** **P20:- COPY OF THE RESEARCH EXPERINCE CERTIFICATE OF R3.** **P21:- COPY OF THE SYNDICATE RESOLUTIN DTD. 16.2.1985.** **P22:- COPY OF THE LIST OF CONTRIBUTIONS SUBMITTED BY R3.** **P22(a):- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RESEARCH SPONSORING AGENCY.** **P23:- COPY OF THE TEACHING EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DT. 30.5.05 ISSUED BY THE SCHOOL OF PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES OF MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.** **P23(a): COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DTD. 31.3.98 ISSUED BY PKM COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, KANNUR.** **P23(b):- COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DTD. 18.7.98 ISSUED BY THE KE COLLEGE, MANNANAM.** **P23(c):- COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE DTD. 2.4.94 ISSUED BY HERMON SCHOOL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** **P24:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.FIN.E2/8115/08 DTD.22.8.2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.** ## **P25:- COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.AD E3/9008/06 DTD. .4.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.** **P25(a):- COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.AD E3/9008/06(1) DTD. 4.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.** **R1(a):- COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF WOMEN'S STUDIES IN INDIAN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES DURING ELEVENTH PLAN.** **R1(b):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM OF DR. MOLY KURUVILLA.** **R1(c):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM OF THE PETITIONER.** **tss** ## **W.P.(C) NO.27831/2005** **R3(a):- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF WOMEN STUDIES.** **R3(b):- COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DTD. 30.9.05 ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY.** **R5(a):- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN M.A. DEGREE FROM MOTHER TERESA WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY IN FAVOUR OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **R5(b):- COPY OF THE JRF/NET CERTIFICATE IN FAVOUR OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** **R5(c):- COPY OF THE DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE IN JOURNALISM IN FAVOUR OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **R5(d):- COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE IN WOMEN'S STUDIES IN FAVOUR OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** **R5(e):- COPY OF THE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATES ISSUED FROM THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY IN FAVOUR OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** **R5(f):- COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE AS STATE PROGRAMME DIRECTOR OF THE MAHILA SAMAKHYA PROJECT IN KERALA IN FAVOUR OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** **R5(g):- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE AS CO-ORDINATOR OF A PROJECT UNDER THE CENTRE FOR WOMEN'S DEVELOPMENT STUDIES IN FAVOUR OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** **R5(h):- COPY OF THE BIO-DATA SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AT THE TIME OF INTERVIEW.** **R5(i):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD 29.9.2005 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** **R5(j):-COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GAII/C1/331/2005(SF) DTD. 22.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.** **R5(k):- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GAII/C1/331/2005(SF) DTD. 8.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.** **TRUE COPY** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **W.P.(C) No.27831 of 2005-L** **- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of November, 2011.** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of the third respondent as Reader and other party respondents 5 and 6 as Lecturers by the first respondent University. 2. The case of the petitioner is built up in the following background: She was an applicant pursuant to a notification issued by the University as per Ext.P4, to the post of Director, Reader and Lecturer in the subject 'Women's Studies'. She is a permanent employee of the University, working as Section Officer from 1.1.2005. The date of the notification is 18.4.2005. According to the petitioner, she had the required qualifications for the posts notified. 3. Even though the upper age limit prescribed for open candidates for the post of Lecturer is 40 years, it is pointed out that in the light of the resolution of the Syndicate dated 16.2.1985, internal candidates like the petitioner are eligible for relaxation of five years above the said upper age limit. The petitioner was called for interview in respect of these posts, apart from respondents 3 and 4 and other candidates. For the post of Reader, wpc 27831/2005 2 only four candidates including the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 attended the interview. According to the petitioner, she was eligible for appointment to the post of Reader, whereas respondents 3 and 4 are ineligible. Finally, the third respondent has been appointed. 4. The attack against the third respondent, mainly, is that the third respondent does not have the requisite qualification in the discipline of 'Women's Studies'. The said respondent has only an M.Sc. Degree in Zoology and B.Ed. Degree in Natural Science and M.Ed. degree as the higher degree in the above said subject of education relating to Biology/Zoology. Thus, it is contended that the academic qualifications of the third respondent are not pertaining to the subject of 'Women's Studies'. With regard tot he selection to the post of Lecturer, what is pleaded is that the norms prescribed as per Ext.P8 have been violated at the time of interview. 5. The contesting respondents have filed separate counter affidavits. The petitioner had amended the writ petition to add more prayers, as per I.A. NO.11451/2006. Ext.P10 is the order appointing the third respondent, Ext.P11 is the order relating to the fifth respondent and Ext.P12 is in respect of the 6[th] respondent. 6. The University as well as the contesting respondents point out that wpc 27831/2005 3 the petitioner is not qualified for the post of Reader, as she is not having the required teaching experience or research experience as well as Ph.D. In the statement filed on 14.10.2005 by the learned Standing Counsel for the University, it is admitted that age relaxation was given to the petitioner at the time of interview for the posts of Lecturer and Reader. Therefore, this Court is not concerned with the plea for grant of age relaxation, now. With regard to the qualification of the third respondent, the University has pointed out that her Ph.D. is in the field of Women Studies and she had the required experience also. With regard to the allegation that Ext.P8 norms have not been followed by the University, the same is disputed stating that they have been followed. 7. The petitioner later filed I.A. NO.16154/2009 producing Exts.P13 to P15(a). Ext.P13 is stated to be an enquiry report with regard to the selection to the post of Reader and Lecturer in the Centre for Women's Studies by a sub-committee appointed by the Syndicate. It is stated that the Syndicate thereafter took a decision as per Ext.P14 to approve the report and to take follow up action. The petitioner was later appointed as a Guest Lecturer in the Centre for Women's Studies as per Ext.P15, on a deputation basis. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent in I.A. wpc 27831/2005 4 No.16154/2009, the third respondent disputes the qualifications of the petitioner, academic as well as experience. It is pointed out that the petitioner's M.A. degree in Women's Studies is obtained by way of correspondence course from Alagappa University, which has not been recognised by the Calicut University. The petitioner is not having regular teaching experience nor post doctoral research experience. It is averred that the third respondent obtained Ph.D. in the field of Women's Studies and her Ph.D. specialisation is in the “interaction of emotional adjustment, parental involvement and achievement motivation on achievement in Biology of secondary school students of working and no working mothers.” Reliance is placed on the U.G.C. guidelines also. It is further point out that the third respondent has already approached the Chancellor by invoking Section 7(3) of the Calicut University Act as per Ext.R3(c) petition, challenging Exts.P13 and P14 on various grounds and the same is pending There is also an interim order passed by the Chancellor in the stay petition filed by other teachers whose appointments were terminated on the basis of Exts.P13 and P14. 9. The fifth respondent, in the counter affidavit, has produced the details of her qualifications. It is pointed out that in the interview she has got first rank and was appointed accordingly. It is also pointed out that the wpc 27831/2005 5 petitioner's performance in the interview was poor and therefore she was not selected. It is further pointed out that the petitioner did not come out successful on the basis of want of merit and therefore there is no cause for any challenge against the appointment of the fifth respondent. 10. The University has produced the applications submitted by the petitioner and the third respondent respectively, as Exts.R1(b) and R1(c). 11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Alexander Thomas, Shri Santhosh Mathew, learned Standing Counsel for the University, Shri P.K. Ibrahim, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, Shri K. Jaju Babu, learned counsel for the fifth respondent and Smt. Sadanakumari, learned counsel for the sixth respondent. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent is not having academic qualification in Women's Studies and therefore her appointment cannot be sustained at all. My attention was invited to the qualifications prescribed as per Ext.P4 notification, for the post of Reader and it is submitted that none of the qualifications obtained by the third respondent is in Women's Studies. With regard to the appointment to the post of Lecturer, learned counsel points out that the selection committee cannot vary the norms according to their whims and fancies. 13. Learned Standing Counsel for the University and learned wpc 27831/2005 6 counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 5 submitted that the petitioner did not fulfill the qualifications for the post of Reader. It is submitted that her Master's Degree in Women's Studies is by distance education which has not been recognised by the Calicut University and accordingly she is not qualified for any of the posts notified. It is therefore submitted that this Court, at this stage, need not conduct a roving enquiry in the matter at the instance of a person who is not qualified at all for submitting application for these posts. 14. In fact, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after setting aside the selection already conducted, the University should be directed to conduct a fresh selection for the post of Reader and Lecturer and the petitioner should also be allowed to compete in the fresh selection. 15. Since it is strongly disputed that the petitioner is not having the qualifications for appointment to the post of Reader, I shall now examine the said contention. As far as the post of Reader is concerned, the qualification prescribed is the following: ## “Reader i) A good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work in the concerned subject of this University or an wpc 27831/2005 7 equivalent degree from an Indian/Foreign University recognized as equivalent thereto with a doctoral decree or equivalent published work. In addition to these, candidates who join from outside the University system shall also possess at least 55% of the marks or an equivalent grade of B in 7 point Scale with latter grades O, A, B, C, D, E & F at Master's degree level. ii) Five years of teaching and/or research excluding the period spent for obtaining the research degree and has made some mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula.” Therefore, apart from academic qualification, five years of teaching and/or research excluding the period spent for obtaining the research degree, etc. etc. should be there. 16. Herein, the pleadings of the petitioner show that the petitioner has Master's Degree in Women's Studies with first class, M.A. degree in English Literature and M.A. degree in Sociology. She acquired NET also. She was not having Ph.D. and was “doing Ph.D. in Calicut University” as evident from the averments in para 2 of the writ petition. The notification is dated 18.4.2005. The petitioner mainly was aggrieved by the alleged stand of the University that they will not grant relaxation of five years which is evident from para 5 of the writ petition. But going by the averments in the wpc 27831/2005 8 counter affidavits and the statements, it can be seen that by granting relaxation she was allowed to compete and participate in the selection to the posts of Lecturer and Reader and therefore the said question has become academic and her applications were also not rejected on the said reason. 17. Evidently, the experience qualification is required for the post of Reader. A copy of the application of the petitioner has been produced by the University along with an additional statement, as Ext.R1(c). The details in column 14 show that her experience shown is as Assistant Grade II, Assistant Grade I, Senior Grade Assistant, Selection Grade Assistant and Section Officer in the University and she has not earned any teaching experience. Against the column “Teaching”, the noting made is “Not applicable”. Therefore, without going into the plea of lack or otherwise of her academic qualification, it can be safely concluded that she was not eligible to apply for the post of Reader for lack of teaching experience. With regard to the academic qualification also, it can be seen that she was not holding Ph.D. degree at the time of issuance of the notification. The further controversy raised is whether, her M.A. degree in Women's Studies obtained through distance education which is unrecognised by the Calicut University, will help her. But the lack of experience qualification itself is fatal to her application for the post of Reader. wpc 27831/2005 9 18. What remains therefore is the challenge against the selection to the post of Lecturer. Herein also, as far as the post of Lecturer is concerned, what is specified in Ext.P4 notification against the post of Reader/Lecturer is the following: ## **“Reader/Lecturer in Women's Studies:** In addition to the qualifications for Reader/Lecturer as per UGC norms, the person must necessarily have experiences in teaching, research and extension and field action in Women Studies.” 19. The fifth respondent, in her counter affidavit has stated that she stood first in the interview. The details of her qualifications and experience have been given para 4 of the counter affidavit. By Ext.R5(i) order dated 29.9.2005, she was appointed also. In fact, the vehement argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the University conducted the interview without following the guidelines in Ext.P8 which is refuted by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents and by the learned Standing Counsel for the University. Ext.P8 details the marks which could be awarded in the interview for various components. What is alleged in para 5 of the writ petition is the following: “It is reliably learned that the selection committee has not followed the guidelines in Ext.P8 for the selection to the post of Lecturer in Women's Studies.” In the grounds of the writ petition wpc 27831/2005 10 also, what is alleged is that Ext.P8 guidelines have not been followed. The petitioner has not elaborated any specific violation of the guidelines. There is no allegation as regards the selected candidates that they have been awarded marks in variation to the bench marks prescribed in Ext.P8. The University even in the first statement filed on 14.10.2005 has stated that the guidelines were strictly followed, while denying the allegations of the petitioner. 20. As far as the post of Lecturer is concerned, the petitioner was not selected, according to the University and the contesting respondents, because of her poor performance in the interview and therefore she could not become successful or come in the top of the rank list for the post. There are no allegations of malafides against the members of the selection committee or any allegation of showing favoritism to the successful candidates. Therefore, evidently as far as the granting of marks are concerned, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the same. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is well within her rights in challenging the appointment of the third respondent who, according to her, lacks the qualification. It is asserted by the learned counsel for the third respondent that the third respondent obtained Ph.D. in the field of Women's Studies and the UGC wpc 27831/2005 11 guidelines, clause 5.6 enlist the various topics relating to Women Studies for pursuing research and she has got the required number of years experience for selection to the post. 22. While we are considering the attack against the selection of the third respondent, the question is whether the petitioner could satisfy this Court about her teaching experience. Evidently, in the absence of teaching experience at college level, the petitioner could not have competed for the post itself. Therefore, the question whether the selected candidates are qualified, has become academic, especially since the third respondent's petition is pending before the Chancellor. 23. The contesting respondents have got a case that the petitioner's qualification, viz. M.A. degree in Women's Studies, is obtained by distance education and the same is not recognised by the Calicut University. In the light of the fact that I am resting upon my decision on the plea of lack of teaching experience, I am not finally pronouncing on the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of this Court in **Mujeeb Rahman v. State of Kerala** (2005 (1) KLT 680), **State of Kerala v. Suja Kumari** (2006 (1) KLT 846) and **Public Service Commission v. Abdul Rasheed** (2007 (3) KLT 881) to contend for the position that the wpc 27831/2005 12 qualification obtained under distance education is a recognised one, whereas the learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that unless equivalence of qualification is recognised by the University, the principles stated therein will not help the petitioner. In fact, the question that is posed herein did not require an examination of the same, and therefore I refrain from further probing into the matter. 24. Both sides have relied upon various other decisions also. In W.A. No.400/2005, this Court considered the requirement of teaching experience for the post of Reader, in a similar notification. Therein, the view taken is that the teaching experience should be one acquired before the person concerned got the Ph.D. degree and therefore it was held that the third respondent therein was not having the required five years teaching experience. W.A. No.551/2010 is the one relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner for a direction to the University to consider the candidature of the petitioner, in the event of a fresh selection. In fact, as the petitioner is not qualified for the post of Reader, evidently because of lack of teaching experience, I need not consider the same in this proceedings. The decision of the Apex Court in **Sudershan Singh v. Hrinder Mohan Sharma and others** {(2003) 12 SCC 47}, is a case wherein the challenge wpc 27831/2005 13 was made against an appointment. Therein also, there was a controversy regarding the qualification of the petitioner. The Apex Court in para 4 observed as follows: “One challenges the appointment complaining that he was duly qualified for the post and for being considered for the same his qualification would normally be examined so as to find out whether he is entitled to challenge the selection of the selected candidates. In case he himself lacks the qualification, the selected candidate at least has the opinion of the Expert Committee which considered the selected candidate and found him quite fit for appointment in answer to the qualification for that appointment.” The above observation is relied upon by Shri Santhosh Mathew, to show that this Court will have to satisfy about the lack of qualification of the petitioner before proceeding to consider the validity of appointments made. As far as the aspect whether the third respondent is qualified or not, evidently the matter is now pending before the Chancellor, as pointed out in the counter affidavit by the third respondent. The said petition has been produced as Ext.R3(c). The same is one challenging Exts.P13 and P14. Therefore, as the matter is pending before the Chancellor, this Court need not go into the said controversy at this stage. 25. The petitioner, during the pendency of the writ petition, was wpc 27831/2005 14 appointed as a Guest Lecturer on deputation. In I.A. No.14841/2011 the petitioner sought for a direction to keep in abeyance the steps to terminate her appointment as Guest Lecturer in Women Studies and this Court passed an interim order on 6.9.2011 which was being extended from time to time. It was made clear therein that the University will be free to make appointment in other posts of Guest Lecturers. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the University is attempting to cancel the deputation ordered as per Ext.P25(a), to defeat her rights in continuing as Guest Lecturer. In this writ petition, we are only concerned with the challenge against selection to the posts of Reader and Lecturer. This court is not called upon to decide anything with regard to the right of the petitioner for appointment as Guest Lecturer or her continuance in the said post as such. Therefore, I refrain from going into such disputes, here. For all these reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. ## **(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)** ## **kav** After the pronouncement of the judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the petitioner may be disbursed salary as a wpc 27831/2005 15 deputationist till today. The petitioner was continuing based on an interim order in I.A. No.14841/2011 dated 6.9.2011. In Ext.P25(a) order it is mentioned that the period of her continuation as Guest Lecturer hereafter will be regularised based on the orders to be passed by this Court in this regard. In that view of the matter, it is made clear that the petitioner will be paid salary as it was being done earlier, reckoning the period till today as period spent on deputation. It is made clear that this order shall not be treated as permission for further continuance as Guest Lecturer. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) 18/11/2011