1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8789 OF 2004 Smt.Vijaya Verus D’Sa ... Petitioner v/s Parle Tilak Vidyalaya Association & ors. ... Respondents Mr.M.P.Vashi for the petitioner. None present for the respondents. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 18TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The petition arises from a judgment and order dated 13.9.2004 of the University and College Tribunal in Appeal No.1 of 2004. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. The petitioner has completed her M.A. in Economics and had obtained the NET/SET qualifications. She was a candidate from the open category. The petitioner was initially 2 appointed in the respondent college as a Lecturer for Economics from 2.8.1997. This appointment order indicated that she was appointed only for a temporary period upto 30.9.1997 for merely two months. On 24.9.1997 she received another appointment letter indicating that she would be continued in service as a full time Lecturer in Economics with effect from 2.8.1997 to 20.4.1998. On 15.6.1998 she was issued another appointment order informing her that she is appointed with effect from 16.6.1998 to 30.9.1998 i.e. for the period of three and half months. On the approval being granted by the University of Mumbai to her appointment, the petitioner was continued in service from 1.10.1998 to 18.11.1998. Before that period came to an end, another letter was issued to the petitioner on 3.11.1998 appointing her in service from 19.11.1998 to 31.12.1998 again for a period of one and half months. She was continued in service from 1.1.1999 to 23.1.1999 and later from that date to 15.6.1999 by separate appointment letters. She was again issued an appointment letter appointing her for a month. Thus, periodically, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Economics upto 15.6.2000. 3. On 9.6.2000, a fresh appointment letter was issued to the petitioner appointing her upto 31.7.2000. In this letter, 3 for the first time, it was mentioned that she has been appointed against a reserved post. She continued as a Lecturer in the reserved post upto 16.8.2000 which was extended time and again upto 31.8.2001. On 4.9.2001, she was again issued a letter indicating that her appointment upto 30.11.2001 was a purely temporary appointment. However, there was no mention in this appointment letter that her appointment was against a reserved category post. Thereafter, on 5.12.2001, she was continued as a temporary employee upto 30.4.2002, the date on which the interview was to be held. On 1.10.2002 again a similar letter was issued informing the petitioner that she would be continued upto 30.11.2002 or upto the date of the interview which was earlier. The last such appointment order issued to the petitioner was dated 27.11.2002 informing her that she was being appointed against the reserved post upto 30.4.2003. 4. It appears that thereafter no appointment order was issued to the petitioner. On 24.12.2003, an advertisement was issued by the college for appointing lecturers in various subjects. The advertisement indicated that two posts of Lecturer for Economics were to be filled in the reserved category, one for the Scheduled Castes and the other for the Scheduled Tribes. According to the petitioner, on 27.12.2003 4 she came to know that two persons were appointed as lecturers by the college despite the fact that they did not belong to the reserved category. On 8.12.2003, the petitioner was orally informed that she would not be permitted to join services again. 5. Aggrieved by the decision of the college, the petitioner approached the College Tribunal by preferring an appeal under the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act. The College Tribunal has held, while dismissing the appeal, that the petitioner was not entitled to continue in service as she was not from the reserved category and in any event her appointment was purely temporary in nature. Further more, the Tribunal held that the procedure adopted for appointing her was not in accordance with the Statute 417 of the Statues of the Bombay University and, therefore, she would not be entitled to continue in the employment. 6. Aggrieved by the decision of the College Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring the present writ petition. 7. Mr.Vashi appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been continued in service ever since her initial 5 appointment from 21.8.1997 till she was terminated from service on 8.12.2003. He submits that there is no indication in the first appointment order issued to her that she would be appointed against a reserved category post. He therefore submits that the reasons for terminating her from service that she did not belong to the reserved category is erroneous as the post itself was not meant for the reserved category candidate. 8. Considering the appointment orders which are annexed to the petition, it is true that all the appointment orders do not indicate that the petitioner was appointed against a reserved category post. Such appointment orders in which there was a stipulation that she was being appointed against a reserved category post were issued on 9.6.2000, 29.7.2000, 19.8.2000, 13.10.2000, 1.12.2000 and 8.6.2001. However, all the appointment letters indicate that the posting was for a purely temporary period. A perusal of these appointment orders indicate that the petitioner was in service as a Lecturer for Economics only for a temporary period. She was appointed every now and then for a month or two. Therefore, in my opinion, the Tribunal has not erred in concluding that her appointment was only for a temporary period and that she has no right to continue in service. 6 9. The submission of Mr.Vashi that the petitioner could not be discontinued on the basis that she did not belong to the reserved category is unsustainable. The last appointment to the post of Lecturer for Economics was for 27.11.2002 to 30.4.2003. The appointment letter categorically mentions that the appointment was against a reserved post. The post of Lecturer for Economics which fell vacant was for a candidate from the reserved category. Admittedly, the petitioner did not belong to the reserved category and, therefore, she has not been offered employment after the term ended on 30.4.2003. The advertisement issued in the local newspaper indicating that vacancies for the two posts of Lecturer in Economics were available, both for the reserved category candidates, establishes the fact that the post which the petitioner held was not due to a clear vacancy. 10. The petitioner being aggrieved by her termination from service, had pointed out the college that she was interviewed by the college on two occasions and thereafter appointed. She has contended in her letter dated 27.11.2003 that her appointment had been approved by the University from time to time and that she was fully qualified as per the requirement of U.G.C. However, the petitioner’s entry in the service was not in accordance with the Maharashtra 7 Universities Act. She was not appointed after an interview by the Interview Committee duly constituted as required under the aforesaid Act. Therefore, her initial appointment itself was invalid and illegal. The Tribunal, in my opinion, has rightly dismissed the appeal. 12. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. ..... 8