2007 (2) TMI 700 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the High Court's order based on alleged misrepresentation by the University.
2. The requirement and validity of the 6th advertisement for the reserved post.
3. The appellant's right to regularization after serving on a temporary basis for several years.

Summary:

1. Validity of the High Court's order based on alleged misrepresentation by the University:
The appellant challenged the High Court's orders, arguing that the initial order dated 13.4.2005 was based on a fraudulent misrepresentation by the University, which falsely claimed that the 6th advertisement had not been issued. The Supreme Court noted that the advertisement had indeed been issued on 13.4.1999 and interviews were conducted on 5.7.1999, with no backward class candidate appearing. The University had accepted the non-availability report on 1.11.1999. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had been misled by the University's false statements, which vitiated the review order dated 5.5.2005. The Court emphasized that orders founded upon fraud and misrepresentation can be recalled, an inherent power of the Court.

2. The requirement and validity of the 6th advertisement for the reserved post:
The Supreme Court observed that the 6th advertisement was issued as per the Government Resolution and University circular, and no backward class candidate applied. The University later acknowledged in a letter dated 6.9.2005 that it would not be proper to issue another advertisement. The High Court's direction to issue a 6th advertisement was based on incorrect facts, and thus, the basis of the impugned order was incorrect.

3. The appellant's right to regularization after serving on a temporary basis for several years:
The appellant had been serving as a temporary lecturer for over 12 years due to the non-availability of backward class candidates. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant was fully qualified and had been performing her duties satisfactorily. The Court held that it was a fit case for regularization after de-reserving the post, as the appellant would otherwise be age-barred for any other service and would suffer irreparable injury if terminated. The Court directed the respondents to regularize the appellant's services on the post in question after de-reserving the same.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's orders, and directed the respondents to regularize the appellant's services after de-reserving the post. The Court emphasized the importance of addressing fraudulent misrepresentations and ensuring justice for long-serving temporary employees. No order as to costs was made.