WP/1819/1999 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1819 OF 1999 Ranjana Rangarao Nalawade .. Petitioner V/s. The General Secretary, Mahatma Phule Shikshan Sanstha, Sangli & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Suresh S. Pakle for the Petitioner. Mr. B.R. Patil for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. S.N. Bhosle, AGP, for Respondent No.4. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 14 TH JANUARY, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The order impugned in the present Petition has been passed by the Pune/Shivaji University & College Tribunal, Pune, in Appeal No.3 of 1997 on 25th February, 1999. 2. The Petitioner was initially working as a ‘Junior Clerk’ with the Rajarshi Shree Chhatrapati Shahu Homeopathic Medical College, Islampur. The Petitioner claims that she was appointed on 27th July, 1985 on a permanent vacancy having arisen. She was paid a consolidated amount of Rs.500/- per month as salary. It appears that the Petitioner’s service book indicated that she was a permanent employee of the aforesaid College run by Respondent No.1. This College was closed down by the Rspondent No.1 from the academic year 1991-92. The Petitioner was therefore transferred to the Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil College, Uran, Islampur by a transfer order dated 21st February, 1992 with effect from 4th March, 1992. This College was WP/1819/1999 : 2 : run by the same management i.e. Respondent No.1. The Petitioner joined service in the new College, i.e. in the Respondent No.2-College, and was paid Rs.900/- per month as a consolidated salary. In the second year of service she was drawing Rs. 1,000/- per month as salary. Although the Respondent No.2-College received grant-in- aid from the Government, the Petitioner was not being paid salary in accordance with the pay scale fixed fora junior clerk. The Petitioner then approached the Grievance Committee constituted under the Maharashtra Universities Act for redressal of her grievance regarding the salary being paid to her. 3. The Petitioner’s services were terminated on 3rd January, 1997 by the Respondent No.2-College. Being aggrieved by this decision, the Petitioner approached the College Tribunal by preferring an Appeal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act. In its written statement, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that the Petitioner was removed from service due to a reduction in the sanctioned strength of the students. Despite the Petitioner’s contentions, the College Tribunal upheld the order of termination of services and dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner. 4. Mr. Pakale, the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, submits that once it has been held that the Petitioner was a permanent employee, the rules applicable to permanent employees ought to have been followed while terminating her services. He points out that the College Tribunal has accepted the fact that the Petitioner was employed in the Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil College, Uran, Islampur, as a permanent employee. He submits therefore that she could not have been removed from service without following the due process of law. According to Mr. Pakale, the College Tribunal has erred in concluding that the Petitioner was not entitled to claim permanency in the Respondent No.2-College. According to him, the entry in the WP/1819/1999 : 3 : service book clearly shows that she was a permanent employee and, therefore, all rules applicable to permanent employees should have been followed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 while dealing with her case. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Institution submits that the petitioner was employed only on a temporary basis. The order of appointment, according to him, stipulates that she was appointed on a temporary basis and, therefore, she cannot claim any of the benefits attached to a permanent employment. He also submits that the transfer order issued on 21st February, 1992 to the petitioner transferring her from the Rajarshi Shree Chhatrapati Shahu Homeopathic Medical College, Islampur to the Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil College, Uran, Islampur was effected on humanitarian grounds. He submits that since the establishment to which the petitioner was transferred was being run on a temporary basis, she could not claim that she was entitled to be termed as a permanent employee. He points out that after the petitioner was transferred to the Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil College, she worked as a “Clerk” in the Post Graduate Centre, which was being run on a non- grant-in-aid basis. The learned Counsel further points out that the Joint Director of Education had in his affidavit filed before the College Tribunal averred that the petitioner had been appointed on a temporary post in a temporary vacancy and, therefore, could not claim any right of permanency. 6. The College Tribunal in the present case has held that since the entry in the service book was not made in accordance with the provisions of the Standard Code, the Petitioner ought to be considered as a temporary employee. In such a case, the Respondent-Management could exercise its discretion to terminate the services of the Petitioner at any point of time. The College Tribunal has further observed that the WP/1819/1999 : 4 : data of the strength of the students on record indicated that there was no work load as per the staffing pattern that was introduced by the Post Graduate Centre. 7. The submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent-Institution is unsustainable. Once the College Tribunal has found that the petitioner was a permanent employee of the Homeopathic Medical College and that finding has not been challenged by the respondent-Institution, it must follow that all the benefits attached to a permanent employment must be afforded to the petitioner. The entry in the service book of the Petitioner was not challenged by the Respondent- Management. In fact, the service book is maintained by the Respondent-Management. That service book reflected that the Petitioner was employed on a permanent basis. Thus the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without following the due process of law. 8. That being so, she will be entitled to benefits of permanency. At the same time, while terminating her services, it was necessary for the Respondent-Management to terminate her services in accordance with the rules laid down under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and Rules framed thereunder. This has not been done. 9. The College Tribunal has observed that the post occupied by the Petitioner was not advertised, nor was there any selection by the Selection Committee in accordance with the Rule 4 of the Standard Code prior to appointment of the Petitioner. Mr. Pakale submits that the Management of the Respondent No.2-College cannot take shelter behind its own wrong doing. He denies that the Petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis and that her appointment was not in accordance with the Standard Code. WP/1819/1999 : 5 : 10. Mr. Pakale rightly points out that the Respondent No.2-Management could not have ignored the fact that the Petitioner had worked ever since 1992 in the Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil College. She was treated as a permanent employee by the College, However she was not paid the pay scale. The College Tribunal was, therefore, incorrect in observing that the post occupied by the Petitioner had not been advertised and, therefore, she was not entitled to continue in the service. 11. The learned Counsel for the respondent-Institution has argued that the transfer to the Post Graduate Centre of the Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil College from the Homeopathic Medical College was effected only on humanitarian grounds and, therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief because of that transfer. A perusal of the transfer order dated 21st February, 1992 indicates that the services of the petitioner were transferred for “administrative purpose and convenience”. Thus, this submission of the learned Counsel is without merit. It appears that the controversy between the petitioner and the respondent-Institution has arisen only after the petitioner sought wages on the basis of the rates payable to College employees, as she was being paid a consolidated salary of Rs.1,000/-. 12. In view thereof, the Judgment and Order dated 25th February, 1999, passed by the Pune/Shivaji University & College Tribunal, Pune, in Appeal No.3 of 1997, is set aside. The Petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in services as a permanent employee together with continuity of service. 13. As regards back wages, there is no pleading at all in the aforesaid Appeal as to how the Petitioner survived after she was terminated from the services on 3rd January, 1997. This is probably because the Appeal was filed within less than 15 days from the WP/1819/1999 : 6 : date of her termination from the services. It was, therefore, necessary for the Petitioner to file a separate affidavit indicating as to where she was working during the intervening period. Admittedly, this has not been done. Therefore, in my opinion, the Petitioner would not be entitled to the relief of back wages. Other than this, she is entitled to reinstatement in service as a permanent employee with continuity of service. 14. The Writ Petition is disposed of with aforesaid directions. 15. Rule made absolute partly. No order as to costs.