1 W.P.No.1059.00 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1059 OF 2000 Vithal Krishna Chavan ... Petitioner v/s 1. The Principal, Jaysingpur College, Jaysingpur; and others. ... Respondents Mr.S.S. Pakale for the petitioner. Mr.T.S. Ingale for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.R.S. Khadapkar for respondent No.4. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 6TH AUGUST, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The petitioner was appointed as a Physics Lecturer pursuant to an advertisement issued by respondent No.1. He was appointed after being selected by the Selection Committee of the University. However, his appointment was only for one term on a temporary basis. This appointment was made on 18.7.1996. It appears that the petitioner was continued in service in the college by being appointed afresh for each term. His services were terminated with effect from 20.4.1998. The petitioner therefore preferred an appeal 2 W.P.No.1059.00 before the University Tribunal. 2. A written statement was filed by the college that since temporary approval to his appointment was granted by the University, the appellant had continued in service through the Local Selection Committee and not on account of a selection made by the University Selection Committee. The University has further averred that a regular appointment should have been made by the respondents in accordance with the statute; instead the petitioner had been terminated from service on 20.4.1998. 3. Mr.Ingale, the learned advocate appearing for the management of the college submits that today there is a clear vacancy available in the college for a Lecturer in Physics. He submits that since the petitioner has been working throughout with the college due to the order of this Court, the petitioner will be absorbed by the college in its clear vacancy. He further submits that the college will then send the proposal to the University for approval of the petitioner’s appointment in the post of Lecturer in Physics. He submits that this procedure would be adopted if the petitioner agrees to forgo his back wages, while the college will grant him continuity in service. 3 W.P.No.1059.00 4. Mr.Pakale, on instructions from the petitioner who is present in Court, states that the petitioner has no objection to this course being followed. The petitioner is willing to forgo his back wages as long as he is reinstated in service as a Lecturer in Physics, with continuity of service. 5. Mr.Khadapkar appearing for the University states that the petitioner ought to have appeared before the Selection Committee since the post has already been advertised. On 15.6.2010. He submits that the University would not be bound to grant approval to the candidature of the petitioner. 6. In my opinion, since the college is willing to run the risk of absorbing the petitioner in service as a Lecturer in Physics, the statement of Mr.Ingale can be accepted. Similarly, the statement of Mr.Pakale appearing on behalf of the petitioner is also accepted that the petitioner will not claim back wages. 7. After absorbing the petitioner in service, the college management shall send the proposal for the approval of the petitioner’s appointment to the University, which will consider the same in accordance with law. 8. Rule made absolute accordingly. ..... 4 W.P.No.1059.00 5 W.P.No.1059.00