1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 03 OF 2009 in WRIT PETITION NO. 4764 OF 2006 PETITIONER : Rameshwar S/o Gulabrao Jadhav Aged about 38 years, R/o Hisai, Post Pardi (Tad), Tal. Pangrulpir, Dist. Washim. - VERSUS - RESPONDENTS : 1] The President, University and College Tribunal, Nagpur. 2] Chandrakant Nanarao Ghuge, Aged about 45 years, R/o Udi, Post. Amana, Tah. Malegaon, Dist. Washim. 3] Rajasthan Education Society, C/o R.A. Arts and M.K.Commerce and S.R. Rathi Science College, Washim, through its President Shri Subhash Rathi 4] R.A. Arts and M.K.Commerce and S.R. Rathi Science College, Washim, through its Principal Shri R.A.Maloo 5] The Amravati University, Amravati, through its Registrar Amravati. 6] V. M. Rathod, Lecturer in History, R.A. Arts and M.K.Commerce and S.R. Rathi Science College, Washim. 7] Dr. Bias, Lecturer in History, Takshashila Mahavidyalaya, Sham nagar, Amravati, R/o Balaji Plots, Near Sitarambaba Mandir, Amravati. 2 8] Mrs. Canoje, Lecturer, The Government B.Ed. College, Akola, (nominee of Joint Director of Higher Education, Amravati. 9] The Joint Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Z.A.Haq, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. F.T.Mirza, Advocate for Respondent no.2. Mrs. T.D.Khade, Advocate for Respondent no.5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : D. B. BHOSALE ; and PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 17th June, 2010. P. C. 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] By this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has impugned the order dated 2/12/2008, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4764/2006. In the writ petition, the appellant had impugned the order dated 30/6/2006, passed by the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal No. A-6/1999, allowing the appeal filed by respondent no.2. 3] We have perused the order passed by the learned Single 3 Judge. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge considered the very same submissions as advanced before us in a proper perspective, and for the reasons recorded in the order, rightly dismissed the writ petition. 4] Mr. Haq, learned counsel for the appellant raised only two contentions. Firstly, he submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction. He submitted that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to declare that respondent no.2 was selected on the second post of Lecturer in History, and since the declaration was without jurisdiction, the judgment and order of the Tribunal is illegal and liable to be set aside. Secondly, he submitted that the interpretation made by the University of the Select List/proposal, sent by the management to the University for approval to the appointments of Respondent nos.2 and 6 on the post of Lecturer in History, was wrong since it was based on the affidavit of Mr. R.J.Bias, which contained some wrong statements in respect of selection of the candidates. 5] There is no dispute that the appellant had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 3032 of 2000, challenging the order passed by the University and College Tribunal dated 28/6/2000, whereby the appeal filed by respondent no.2 was allowed. The said writ petition was allowed and 4 the matter was remanded to the Tribunal with a request to decide the appeal and the question as to who was selected for the second post by 31/8/2005. There is no dispute that respondent no.2 in the appeal had mainly challenged his termination. In view thereof, as has been rightly observed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, it was necessary for the Tribunal to consider the question as to who was selected on the second post in the subject of History and then to reach conclusion whether or not the impugned order of termination was wrong/illegal. The learned Single Judge has considered this aspect in a proper perspective and recorded its findings in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, which reads thus - “8. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of parties and have also perused the judgment dated 30/6/2006. It is necessary to consider that this Court had by the judgment dated 02/8/2005 in writ petition no. 3032/2000 remanded the matter to the Tribunal and further requested the Tribunal to consider the question as to who was selected on the second post in the subject of History, after perusal of the material on record. Respondent no.2 had not only prayed for a declaration in the appeal, but had also sought for quashing and setting aside of the termination of respondent no.2, effected by the management on 30/7/1999. The respondent no.2 had also sought a direction to the management to reinstate respondent no.2 in service with full back wages and continuity in service. Though the declaration was sought by prayer clause (1) and 5 setting aside of oral termination was sought by prayer clause (2) in the appeal, it is clear that the respondent no.2 was aggrieved by the order of termination which was effected in view of the interpretation of the University of the selection list/proposal send by the management to the University for granting approval to the appointment of respondents no.2 and 6 on the post of Lecturers in History. The issue of the position of the candidates in the selection list was, therefore, considered by the Tribunal while considering the correctness of the order of termination of service of respondent no.2.” 6] Insofar as the second submission is concerned, it is true that there was an error in the affidavit filed by Mr. R.J.Bias, one of the members of the Selection Committee, in mentioning the name of selected candidates. He had wrongly mentioned Shri Patki instead of Shri Murkute as a selected candidate along with Mr. Chandrakant Ghuge, who was selected at Sr. No.1. Merely because he committed such an error, would not, in our opinion, be sufficient to completely overlook the affidavit and decide the matter on the basis of the interpretation of the Select List/proposal, made by the appellant. Insofar as interpretation of the select list/ proposal is concerned, the learned Single Judge has considered this aspect also in a proper perspective and recorded its findings in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, which reads thus - “9. For the aforesaid reason it cannot be said that, the 6 Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant a declaration as sought by respondent no.2 in the appeal. It also cannot be said that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the two sets of candidates made by the selection committee indicate that the said sets represent two posts and the figures I and II represents 1st and 2nd preference. The Tribunal was justified in holding that figure 1 against the name of resondent no.2 indicated that he had first preference to the second post and figure II read against the name of Shri Murkute indicates that he had a second preference to the second post. It cannot be said that the Tribunal was not justified in giving less significance to the printed words .first preference, second preference and third preference. in the concerned document. Apart from the said document which was interpreted by the Tribunal, the Tribunal also relied on the affidavit of one of the Members of the Selection Committee who was a party to the appeal.” 7] Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant so also the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, and considering the material placed before this Court, in our opinion, the impugned order cannot be faulted warranting interference in this Appeal. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale