Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 325 (JK)

Central University of Jammu v. Namita Singh

2017-07-14

ALOK ARADHE, B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This intra court appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.12.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 has been allowed on the ground that one ad hoc arrangement cannot be replaced by another ad hoc arrangement. 3. Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the respondent No.1, was employed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Sciences and Information Technology on contract basis from time to time. The respondent No.1, having participated in the process for academic year, filed a writ petition before this court in which a prayer was made that her services be regularized. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with the direction to the appellant-University to continue the respondent as Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Sciences and Information Technology, till such time as the University decides to continue with the temporary arrangement. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 4. When the matter was taken up today, Mr. D C Raina, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has invited the attention of this Court to Ordinance 18.6 of the Ordinances of the University which provides for the manner of appointment on the temporary basis in case the appointment cannot be made on regular basis or suitable candidate is not found. It is further submitted that the aforesaid appointment is to be made by the local selection committee consisting of the Dean of the School concerned, the Head of the Department and a nominee of the Vice Chancellor. It is also submitted that the aforesaid ordinance has not been taken into account by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order which enables the University to make the temporary appointment for an academic year. It is also pointed out that the respondent No.1 by an order dated 20.01.2017 has been appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in a Government College. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel has produced a copy of order of appointment of respondent No.1, which is taken on record. 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel has produced a copy of order of appointment of respondent No.1, which is taken on record. 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Taking into account the fact that the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 has not taken note of ordinance 18.6 of the ordinances of the University which permits the University to make the appointment on temporary basis for an academic year, we direct that the judgment dated 30.12.2016 rendered in SWP No.3345/2015 shall not be treated as precedent. In view of subsequent appointment of the respondent No.1 as Assistant Professor vide order dated 20.01.2017 on regular basis in a Government College, nothing survives for adjudication in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is disposed of along with connected MP.