1 W.P.No.9675-9676-9677 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9675 OF 2010 Solapur University ... Petitioner v/s Shri Harish B. Garampalli & anr. ... Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9677 OF 2010 Solapur University ... Petitioner v/s Shri Sharad Shankar Pawar & anr. ... Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 9678 OF 2010 Solapur University ... Petitioner v/s Shri Sachin S. Potdar & anr. ... Respondents Mr.G.S.Godbole with Mr.Rampal S. Kohli for the petitioner. Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for respondent No.1. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P. for the State. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 21ST JANUARY, 2011 P.C.: 2 W.P.No.9675-9676-9677 1. The petitions have been filed against the order passed by the Presiding Officer of the University and College Tribunal, Pune. By the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, the appeals filed by the respondent employees under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act have been allowed. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that sub-rules (1) to (5) of Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms and Conditions of Service of non-teaching employees) Rules 1984 (in short, ‘’the Standard Code Rules’’) operate in a different field from sub-rule (6). It is contended that the termination of service if effected under sub-rule (6) will not be governed by the rest of the provisions of Rule 7 or by Rule 12. 3. This submission of the learned advocate cannot be accepted. Rule 7 must be read as a whole. The probationers have been terminated from service only because their work was not found satisfactory. However, for considering whether the work is satisfactory, the University is expected to assess the work of an employee or probationer under Rule 12. Any adverse remarks are to be informed to the employee 3 W.P.No.9675-9676-9677 concerned so that he is able to take corrective measures to overcome his deficiencies, if any, in order to improve himself. In my opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error in allowing the appeals. 4. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that an assessment of the performance of the respondent employees it was found that their performance was not good and, therefore, their services had been terminated. Admittedly, these adverse remarks were not communicated to the employees. The Tribunal has therefore held that the procedure contemplated under Rule 7 of the Standard Code had been violated and, therefore, the orders terminating the services of the respondent employees are unsustainable. I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Writ petitions rejected. 6. Mr.Godbole seeks stay of the Tribunal’s order. Mr. Bandiwadekar vehemently opposes any stay being granted. 7. The Tribunal’s order is stayed for a period of four weeks. ..... 4 W.P.No.9675-9676-9677 5 W.P.No.9675-9676-9677