DEVAYANI ODATH v. THE UNION OF INDIA

OP.39592/02Page numbersBy Ext.P2 judgment dated 27.2.1992 in O.P.No.10078/88, thisCourt refused to entertain that writ petition against thedisciplinary proceedings, on the ground that according to thepetitioner, a Special Leave Petition was then pending before theApex Court, at her instance, against the aforesaid decision of theDivision Bench. She was accordingly given liberty to challengethe dismissal, in the event of the Apex Court setting aside thedecision of the Division Bench, noted above.4.It is the admitted fact that the SLP, challenging thejudgment in the writ appeals, was dismissed. This means thepetitioner's claim for entitlement to be treated as lecturer and tobe employed in that status in the Institution, stood concludedagainst her by the judgment in the writ appeals, affirmed by theApex Court and all that remained was her entitlement to beconsidered in terms of the directions of the Division Bench, asand when vacancy arises and if she is duly qualified at that pointof time. Though Ext.P2 judgment in O.P.10078/88 made herright to challenge her dismissal from service to be dependant on OP.39592/02Page numbersthe verdict of the Apex Court in the SLP, I do not deem itnecessary to decide in these proceedings as to whether thepetitioner stood concluded finally by Ext.P2 judgment on thatissue. This is because no further action has been taken by her tochallenge the dismissal from service.5.In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions toimplement the report of a screening committee and to implementthe recommendations of a one man committee. According to her,the screening committee found her competent to be employed asa teacher, though not as a lecturer and the one man committee,which, according to her, looked into the allegations against thePrincipal, had reported that the petitioner's dismissal wasessentially a case of abuse of powers and because the Principalhad an axe to grind against her.6.The question whether the one man committee, whichlooked into the conduct of the Principal, was one appointed bythe Government is itself a matter in dispute. OP.39592/02Page numbers7. But, while it would have been open to the Government andthe management to reconsider the disciplinary proceedings ifthere was any such report, which would have prompted themanagement and the Government to take such a course ofaction, I do not deem it appropriate to issue a judicial orderreopening such proceedings because the question of herentitlement to continue in service as a lecturer stands concludedagainst her by the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, asaffirmed by the Apex Court by the dismissal of the SLP.8.In so far as the decision of the screening committee isconcerned, the directions contained in the judgment of theDivision Bench, by the dismissal of the SLP, still holds the fieldwhich is to the effect that the respondents shall consider theclaim of the petitioner in an independent selection, if she is dulyqualified, when vacancy arises. But that direction was obviouslyissued by this Court when the situation of the dismissal of thepetitioner was not on record, either because that was a later OP.39592/02Page numbersevent or because there was no material regarding that, onrecord.9.In the aforesaid circumstances, while it may be open to therespondents to decide for themselves as to whether thepetitioner could be appointed as a teacher or not, I do not deemit appropriate to issue any direction in that regard in exercise ofauthority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed.No costs.Sd/-THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNANJudgekkb. OP.39592/02Page numbers======================= THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JO.P.NO.39592 OF 2002JUDGMENT4th JULY, 2007.=======================