STATE OF KERALAversusMOTHER ANASTHASIA, SUPERIOR GENERAL AND ORS.

                               STATE OF KERALA                                       A
>-                                          v.
         MOTHER ANASTHASIA, SUPERIOR GENERAL AND ORS.

                                FEBRUARY 6, 1997

              [K RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.]                                  B

           Service Law:

           Calicut University Act, 1975 :

           Sections 57(1), (4) and (6) - Lecturers-Preferential claim for appoint-   c
     ment-Could be claimed only by those Lecturers discharged 011 abolition of
     the post or course of study or such similar circumstances-A temporary
     teacher in q leave vacancy cannot be considered as a discharged einployee as
     such-Hence she cannot claim preferential Right.
                                                                                     D
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6768-6Y
'    of 1983.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 19.8.80 of the Kerala High
     Court in O.P. Nos. 8_68177-C and 4934 of 1976-D.
                                                                                     E
           M.T. George for the Appellant.

          Joseph Paikada for K.M.K. Nair and M.A. Firoz (NP) for the
     Respondents.

           The following Order of the Court was delivered:                           F
           These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the
     Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in O.P. Nos. 868177 and 4934/76.

            The admitted position is that Smt. Mary Lily, the third· respondent,
     was temporarily appointed in a leave vacancy for a period of three months       G
     effective from January 2, 1974 in St. Joseph's College for Women, Irin-
     jalakuda. After the expiry of the period, she ceased to be a lecturer. In
     1976, when a permanent vacancy had arisen advertisement was made for
     recruitment. Pursuant thereto, ~hen 27 candidates including the third
     respondent had applied for and called for selection therein Smt. Mariam-
     ma Chacko, fourth respondent was selected. The third respondent chal-           H
                                         1013
    1014                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1997] 1 S.C.R.

A lenged the validity of the selection and appointment of Smt. Mariamma on
    the ground that under Section 57(6) of Calicut University Act, 1975, she        <
    had preferential claim for appointment since she was a discharged
    employee. Sub-section (6) of Section 57 reads as under:

                 "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (i) and (4)
B            a teacher discharged from a private college on or after the 14th
             day of March, 1974, due to abolition of a course of study in that
             college or for any other reason except disciplinary action against
             him shill be given reference in the matter of future appointments
             in the private college or, as the case may be, or any of the private
             colleges under the management of the educational agency within
c            the university area."

                                                           (Emphasis supplied)

           A reading thereof would indicate that notwithstanding anything con-
D tained in sub-section (i) and Section 4 of Section 57, a teacher discharged
  from a private college on or after March 14, 1974 due to abolition of a
  course of study in that college or for any other reason except on discipli-
  nary action against him, shall be given preference in further appointments
  in a private college or any of the private colleges under the Management
  of the educational agency within the university area. Admittedly, the third
E respondent was appointed in a leave vacancy for a short period of three
  months. The intendment of sub-section (6) appears to be only that when
  permanent teacher or teacher appointed on a regular basis is discharged
  from service due to abolition of the course of study in that college or for
  any other reason, obviously, other analogous causes other then disciplinary
  action, such a teacher who held the post was given preferential treatment
F for future appointment. A temporary teacher in a leave vacancy cannot be
  considered as discharged nor claimed the status as discharged employee.
  Discharge would connote for any other reason ujus dem generis due to
  abolition of the post or course of study or such similar circumstances
  except for discharge due to misconduct. Such a teacher only will be eligible
G to set up preferential claim for appointment but not a teacher who for-
   tuitously came to be appointed in a leave vacancy much less for a limited
  period.
                                                                                    r-
           The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

    G.N.                                                    Appeals disposed of.