11. This is a case where the petitioner, despite having the qualification and even after the Special Rules, could not get at least one chance to contest for the selection in respect of the regular vacancy during her life time and as such, her ouster from the zone of consideration cannot be sustained under any circumstance. It is seen that the Government have tried to distinguish the case of the petitioner from the other instances giving benefit to them, by stating that the petitioner was appointed only as a “Guest Lecturer” and not on a ‘provisional basis’. How the vacancy had to be filled up, was a matter for the Government/authorities to consider and there was no contribution from the part of the aspirants like the petitioner. In so far as it is admitted that permanent vacancies were available, which were not filled up for want of Special Rules, the nomenclature or the labelling as to the designation given to the person appointed to meet the contingency cannot be shifted as a lapse/negative trait of the person so selected and appointed. Petitioner is not a back door entrant; but was initially sponsored by the Employment Exchange. This being the position, the distinction sought to be drawn with reference to the ‘nature of appointment’ given to the petitioner, can in no way place any hurdle against her right for being considered at least once in the life time; more so when she is qualified in all other respects.

12. Going by the sequence of events projected before this Court, this Court finds it fit and proper to declare that the petitioner is eligible to be considered for getting her grievance redressed at the hands of the Government in terms of the power vested with the Government under Rule 39 of Part II of the KS & SSR.

13. In the above circumstances, the impugned proceedings are set aside and the Government is directed to look into the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, invoking the power and procedure under Rule 39 of Part II of KS & SSR for giving the benefit as in the case of Smt.Lalitha and Dr.Mini P.Mathai. The process as above shall be finalised at the earliest, at any rate within ‘three months’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The selection process being pursued by the PSC, pursuant to Annexure A9 notification, will stand restricted to the remaining vacancies.

14. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the Government for further steps forthwith.

W.P.(C)No.22964/2011 and O.P.(KAT)No.226/2015 are disposed of as above.

Get free Case Laws via Email Subscription