WP/5202/1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5202 OF 1998 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.357 OF 2010 Chandrashekhar Ravansiddha Gajbhar ... Petitioner V/s. The Principal, S.B.Z. Mahavidyalaya, Barsi & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. K.Y. Mandlik for the Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Shah for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.M. Bhosale, AGP, for Respondent No.4. Mr. S.D. Thokade for Respondent No.6. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 3 RD DECEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. This Writ Petition has been preferred to challenge the order dated 9th September, 1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Pune/Shivaji University and College Tribunal, Pune, in Appeal No.58 of 1997. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a “Lecturer in Sociology” in a College run by the respondent No.2-Institution. This College, which is respondent No.1 herein, appointed the petitioner only after he was selected by the University Selection Committee on 31st December, 1995. The University approved his appointment on 30th March, 1996, after ascertaining that he was qualified to WP/5202/1998 2 teach the subject. The petitioner’s appointment was against a permanent vacancy which was created after the earlier lecturer in Sociology retired. 3. The petitioner commenced working as a lecturer and continued thereto till his services were terminated on 22nd October, 1997 w.e.f. 1st December, 1997. The petitioner’s services were terminated because of a letter received from the Joint Director of Higher Education on 15th October, 1997 that there was no requisite workload for the subject of Sociology and hence the post was abolished. Appeal No.58 of 1997, was filed on 26th November, 2007 by the petitioner before the University & College Tribunal Shivaji University at Pune. The respondent No.1- College contested the Appeal by contending that it was only because the post was abolished that the petitioner was terminated from service. The Joint Director, Higher Education, who was also a party to the proceedings, contended that in view of the G.R. dated 19th June, 1995, there was no requisite workload for the Sociology and, therefore, the post had been abolished. The Appeal was dismissed by the University & College Tribunal on 9th September, 1998 on the ground that the University had not sanctioned two posts. The University and College Tribunal was of the view that since another lecturer, who was senior to the petitioner, was working before the petitioner was appointed, he was required to be terminated from services, once the post was abolished. 4. Mr. Mandlik, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that when the University has sanctioned two posts and has approved the appointment WP/5202/1998 3 of the petitioner, the Joint Director of Higher Education could not review the situation and abolish the post. He points out that the Joint Director of Higher Education has abolished the post based on the G.R. dated 1995. Despite this G.R., the petitioner had been appointed and the University had approved his appointment on 30th March, 1996. It appears that the Resolution of 19th June, 1995 was stayed by the Management as also by the University. It appears that the University, in its affidavit filed before the University & College Tribunal, has stated that the procedure for abolishing the post was not valid as prior permission of the University was not obtained by the Joint Director of Higher Education for abolition of the post. 5. A Civil Application was filed by the petitioner, being Civil Application No. 357 of 2010, which is being heard along with the present Writ Petition. By that Civil Application the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the statement of the workload available in the respondent No.1-College. The statement, which is prepared by the respondent No.1-College, indicates that the total workload is of 36 lectures and it has been approved by the University. Dr. S.B. Ghugare is appointed as a “Full Time Lecturer and Head of the Department”, whereas the petitioner was appointed as a “Full Time Lecturer” and has been continued in service in view of the orders passed by the statement in the Writ Petition. The statement also reveals the approval to the petitioner’s appointment granted by the Shivaji University, Kolhapur. WP/5202/1998 4 6. Both the College as well as the University have categorically stated that the sanctioned strength is for two Lecturers who have to undertake the workload of 36 lectures. The Joint Director of Higher Education, Kolhapur Region has filed an affidavit indicating that although two posts were approved earlier for the year 2007-2008, only one full time lecturer’s post was sanctioned. It has filed report, as directed by this Court, which also indicates that for the years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the actual workload is of 36 lectures. The students’ strength for the First, Second and Third Year has also been calculated and although the strength diminishes, by the time the students reach B.A. Part III, there is sufficient workload in the Department considering all the students in the B.A. Part I, II and III studying Sociology. The explanation sought to be given by the Joint Director of Higher Education, in my opinion, cannot be accepted. The Staffing Pattern dated 6th October, 2010, which is approved by the Divisional Joint Director (Higher Education), Solapur Division, indicates that the sanctioned strength for lecturers in Sociology is two full time lecturers. Therefore, there can be no impediment in permitting the petitioner to continue in service. 7. An affidavit has been filed by the Joint Director of Higher Education, Kolhapur Region, when he has nothing to do with the College which is situated in Barshi under the Solapur University. The College was earlier affiliated to the Shivaji University, Kolhapur, but today it is affiliated to the Solapur University. Therefore, the Staffing Pattern, as stated in the communication received from the WP/5202/1998 5 Divisional Joint Director, Solapur, must be accepted, although as held in Writ Petition No.1518 of 1983 by the Division Bench of this Court, that it is not for the Director of Education but the University to decide the Staffing Pattern. 8. The impugned order dated 9th September, 1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Pune/Shivaji University and College Tribunal, Pune, in Appeal No.58 of 1997, is obviously, therefore, incorrect. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances in the present case, in my opinion, the impugned order must be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 9th September, 1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Pune/Shivaji University and College Tribunal, Pune, in Appeal No.58 of 1997, is set aside. 10. The Writ Petition is allowed. 11. Rule made absolute. 12. No order as to costs. 13. In view of the above, the Civil Application No.357 of 2010 pending in this Writ Petition does not survive and the same is disposed of as infructuous.