1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LETTES PATENT APPEAL No. 10/209 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 989/2001 ( Murlidhar Bhagwanji Rewatkar -: versus :- Gram Yuvak Mandal Bhansuli and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 15, 2009. Heard Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri M.Y.Wadodkar, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri M.V. Samarth, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. Appeal is taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties, at the stage of admission itself. Appellant contended that his termination by the order dated 26.08.2000 is after completion of period of probation and hence unsustainable. The Management pointed out that the petitioner was appointed afresh on 26.6.1998 and hence after his joining w.e.f. 1.7.1998 the probation would have expired on 30.06.2000 i.e. the date on which the termination was effected. Petitioner has pointed out that he submitted application for appointment on 12.04.1997 and after conducting selection process he was appointed by order 2 dated 22.11.1997 on probation for a period of 2 years. He continued to serve without any break. Thereafter, the Management has withdrawn/cancelled this appointment order on 03.06.1998 without assigning any reason and then issued a fresh appointment order to petitioner on 26.6.1998. The order dated 22.11.1997 mention probation of two years, while the appointment order dated 26.6.1998 states that the probation would expire on 29.6.1998 i.e. just three days of the issue of that order. In this background Shri Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for appellant contends that, second appointment is also in pursuance of the very same application dated 12.04.1997 and admittedly without following any fresh selection process. He states that the Management and petitioner had infact earlier filed a Writ Petition jointly before this Court seeking approval. According to him, if the order dated 26.6.1998 is to be accepted, it has to be accepted in its entirety, and therefore, the petitioner has completed his probation on 29.6.1998 and on the date of termination on 26.6.2000 he was a permanent/confirmed employee. He contends that, these aspects are lost sight of by the learned Member of the College Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge of this court. Shri Wadodkar, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and 2 states that the learned Single Judge has found that there was break in service of petitioner after 03.06.1998 and in response to the order dated 26.6.1998 the petitioner joinder duties on 01.07.1998. He states that the period of probation is prescribed in the Statute and it is of two years. The said period was to expire on 30.06.2000 and 3 termination has been ordered before the expiry of the said period. He further argues that the cancellation of earlier appointment order on 03.06.1998 was never questioned by the petitioner. After going through the order of the College Tribunal and also after perusing the order of the learned Single Judge, we find that the issues which clearly require determination are not addressed to. The question is whether the order dated 26.6.1998 has effected fresh appointment of petitioner in law. The said order specifically mentions that probation was to come to an end on 29.6.1998, it therefore implies that the petitioner was very much in service on 26.6.1998 and also on 29.6.1998. In any case if the order dated 26.6.1998 is to be accepted as determinative of the nature of appointment of petitioner, the period of probation prescribed therein had come to an end on 29.06.1998 or within one year and therefore, the said order cannot be read as appointing the petitioner for period of two yeas on probation for the first time. These are some of the questions which requires application of mind in this matter. As these questions are not addressed too, it will not be proper on our part to record any finding in the L.P.A. The same have to be adjudicated before the College Tribunal and therefore the matter is remanded back to the College Tribunal for recording findings on the above questions after taking into into consideration all these aspects and after hearing the respective parties in accordance with the law. The College Tribunal shall endeavor to decide the matter as early as possible and in any case by 31.03.2010. The impugned judgment of the College Tribunal 4 dated 01.12.2000 is hereby quashed and set aside, and Appeal No. N-9/2009 is restored back to the file of the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur for taking fresh decision in the matter. Parties to appear before the said Tribunal on 12.10.2009 and abide by its further directions in the matter. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.