1 W.P.No.3610.02 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3610 OF 2002 Mahatma Phule Shikshan Sanstha & anr. ... Petitioners v/s Shri Rajendra Laxman Sakhare & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Milind Deshmukh for the petitioners. Mr.A.M.Joshi for Respondent No.1. Mr.Kiran Patne, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 & 3. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 18TH FEBRUARY, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The petition has been filed against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal, Pune on 19.6.2001. The Tribunal has passed the following operative order:- “Appeal is allowed and disposed off. The parties shall bear with their own respective costs. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to show the appellant as to have continued in service ether in his original post of junior clerk as w.e.f. 1.1.1997 onwards. In case in a technical flaw or 2 W.P.No.3610.02 objection comes in their way to do so, they may consider to show him in a continued service either in the post of Laboratory Assistant or at least in the post of a peon, the vacancies of which have been so intimated by the office of the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.2 by their letter dated 22.10.1997. The continued service of the appellant as per this judgment when crosses the total period of seven years from the entry of the appellant in service in the year 1994 onwards, the appellant shall automatically get absorbed even as against a vacant post of reserved category for which the office of the Joint Director as well as the other two respondents have been raising objection in this appeal and then further the office of the Joint Director shall have to consider to confer the grant as per rules for the pay and remuneration of the post of appellant. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they had appointed respondent No.1 on the reserved post as a Clerk in their M.C.V.C. Department. His services were terminated as the approval granted by respondent Nos.2 and 3 was only for the academic year 1993-94. According to the petitioner, he was then appointed in 1994 on a fixed monthly salary of Rs.1000/- in the senior college run by the institution. Thereafter, as the workload had reduced, the services of respondent No.1 were terminated on 1.7.1997. 3. Respondent No.1 challenged the order of termination by preferring an appeal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal by passing the aforesaid order. According to respondent No.1, he was not terminated from services on 12.7.1994 but was 3 W.P.No.3610.02 transferred to the College by an order issued on 18.7.1994. He had contended in his appeal that his service should be treated as continuous from the date he was initially appointed in the M.C.V.C. Department on 8.7.1993 as his appointment was with the institution and not merely with a particular department. 3. With the assistance of the learned advocates appearing for both parties, I have perused a copy of the order passed by the Tribunal. In my opinion, the Tribunal has committed a serious error by passing the impugned order. This is because the directions contained in the impugned order are unworkable. The appeal was filed for quashing the order of termination dated 31.12.1996 and for a direction to reinstate respondent No.1 with continuity of service and full back wages. The Tribunal, therefore, could have directed reinstatement in a particular post if it had found that the order terminating the services of respondent No.1 was illegal. Instead of doing so, the Tribunal has given an option to the petitioners to reinstate respondent No.1 in the post of junior clerk. Further more, the Tribunal has directed that since the appellant i.e. respondent No.1 was in continuous service for seven years, after 1994, respondent No.1 should automatically be absorbed in service against vacant post of a reserved category. Unless the Tribunal had accepted that 4 W.P.No.3610.02 respondent No.1 was entitled to reinstatement in a particular post, the question of him being absorbed in that post on completion of seven years, does not arise. 4. In my opinion, therefore, the Tribunal has committed a serious error in passing the impugned order. The order dated 19.6.2001 in Appeal No.4 of 1997(S) passed by the Pune/Shivaji University College Tribunal is quashed and set aside. 5. The matter is remanded to the College Tribunal to decide it afresh. The Tribunal will decide the matter within six months from today. 6. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. 7. In view of remand of the matter to the College Tribunal, the civil application does not survive and stands dismissed as infructuous. ..... 5 W.P.No.3610.02