1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4951 OF 2000 Narendra s/o Shaligram Patil age 39 years, occup. service, Lecturer in Physics (Electronics) Bhusawal Arts, Science and P.O. Nahata Commerce College, Bhusawal, Taluka Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3. The Joint Director, Higher Education, Jalgaon, Division, Jalgaon. 4. Tapti Education Society, Bhusawal Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon, through its Chairman. 5. The Principal, Bhusawal Arts, Science and P.O.Nahata Commerce College, Bhusawal, Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon. 6. The North Maharashtra University Jalgaon, District Jalgaon, through its Registrar. 2 7. The Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada, University, Aurangabad. Respondents ------ Shri S.R.Barlinge, Advocate, for the petitioner. Smt. R.K.Ladda, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1 to 3. Shri G.V.Wani, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Shri Gajendra Jain Advocate, holding for Shri R.B.Raghuwanshi for Respondent No. 6. Coram: P. R. Borkar J. Date: October 7, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT 01. Petitioner seeks direction for quashment and setting aside the judgment and order passed on 11.8.2000 by the learned Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Aurangabad and also seeks direction for quashing and setting aside order dated 14.2.1998 passed by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 terminating services of the petitioner and for further direction to reinstate petitioner with full back wages and continuity of service and other consequential reliefs. 02. Briefly stated, the petitioner passed M.Sc. (Physics) with Electronics as subject. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 published advertisement on 27.8.1993 pursuant to which the petitioner applied and was selected for the post of Lecturer in 3 Physics by the duly constituted Selection Committee and was accordingly appointed on vacant post meant for open category on probation for a period of two years. The appointment was on condition that the petitioner shall pass NET or SET examination before completion of probation period, or that he will submit Ph.D. thesis before December 1993. After appointment, petitioner continued his services with Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and almost completed probation period. 03. On 30.6.1995, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 informed the Petitioner that his services are continued from 1st July 1995 till 15th August 1995 and that further continuation of his service would be considered after availability of work-load for the academic year 1995-96. However, on 11.8.1995, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 sent a notice to Petitioner, without following due procedure laid down in Statute 417 and terminated his services with effect from 15.8.1995 without notice of one month or without paying salary in lieu of notice. 04. The Petitioner approached this court by way of Writ Petition No.4229 of 1995 and this court vide order dated 16.1.1996 directed Respondents to consider the petitioner as surplus Lecturer. In response to the order of this Court, Respondent No.5 issued letter dated 27.3.1996 to the petitioner, informing that the decision of the 4 High Court to consider his case for surplus Lecturer would be discussed in the meeting to be held on 30.3.1996. 05. On 28.2.1996, the Joint Director of Higher Education, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon, was pleased to issue a letter to the Principal directing him to absorb the petitioner as a surplus candidate in his own college and pay him from the grant-in-aid received. He further directed the Principal that the petitioner should be given workload from the available workload from the unaided section. The petitioner was absorbed as surplus Lecturer and worked till February 1998. 06. On 19.1.1998, the Joint Director of Higher Education, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon, informed all the Principals in Jalgaon Division to terminate the services of those Lecturers who have not passed NET/SET examination. Relying on this communication of the Joint Director, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 vide order dated 14.2.1998 terminated services of the petitioner. 07. The said termination was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 911 of 1998 which was disposed of on 12.3.1998 with direction that the petitioner may avail alternate remedy of appeal before the College Tribunal. Accordingly, petitioner filed Appeal No.NMU-2 of 5 1998 before the College Tribunal and challenged the said termination order dated 14.2.1998. That appeal came to be dismissed and therefore present writ petition is filed challenging the said dismissal. 08. It is submitted by Advocate Shri S.R.Barlinge that the petitioner's appointment was in the year 1993 and that he has also acquired M.Phil qualification in April 2008. Advocate Shri Barlinge, relying upon decision rendered on 3.8.2009 by Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.32 of 1999 (Vidya d/o Sheshrao Mankhair vs. Tapti Education Society, Bhusawal and others), submitted that the facts involved in the said case and in the present case are almost identical. The education institute involved in both the matters is also the same. In the case cited, petitioner- appellant was appointed as Lecturer in Botany vide order dated 17.8.1993 on probation of two years and his appointed as as per the procedure adopted by the Selection Committed duly constituted by the University. The appointment was on condition of acquiring NET/SET qualification prior to 31.3.1996. Subsequently, on the ground of non availability of workload, his services were terminated on 6.8.1996. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the University and College Tribunal, Aurangabad by filing Appeal No. NM-15/1997. However, the Tribunal dismissed the 6 appeal on 6.11.1997 and aggrieved thereby, he filed Writ Petition No.5039 of 1997. However, that writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge on 7.2.1998 and thereafter said L.P.A. No.32 of 199 was filed. 09. Thus, the facts of the present case and those involved in L.P.A. No.32 of 199 are identical. In said L.P.A., the court has taken a view that so far as non-passing of NET/SET examination is concerned, it was not disputed that in so many appointments prior to 1999, Colleges were directed by the court to submit proposals for relaxation of condition to the Universities concerned. The Court also observed that the objection of University regarding non clearing of NET/SET examination would not be relevant in the light of the fact that the appellant in L.P.A. 32 of 1999 had acquired M.Phil qualification. After considering other points raised in that L.P.A., the court ultimately disposed of the said appeal with certain directions that the appellant therein should be reinstated on the post of Lecturer in Botany with continuity of service, but not back wages for the period from the date of his termination till actual reinstatement. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. education institute and the Principal were directed to submit proposal for relaxation of condition of passing NET/SET examination, to the University which, in turn, 7 shall forward the same to the University Grants Commission within the given time. 10. Having considered arguments advanced on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondents in the present case, I am of the opinion that present writ petition can also be disposed of with similar order as passed in L.P.A. No.32 of 1999. The petitioner is admittedly reinstated in service w.e.f. 14.2.1998. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with following directions. (i) It is made clear that the writ petitioner would be entitled for continuity of service, however, the appellant would not be entitled to any of the back wages for the period between the date of his termination and till his actual reinstatement. He shall not raise any claim in this regard against Respondents. (ii) Since the appointment of the petitioner relates back to the year 1993 i.e. prior to 1999, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shall submit proposal for relaxation from condition of clearing NET/SET examination to Respondent No.6 University along with all the necessary information. (iii) Respondent-University wold forward the claim of the petitioner for relaxation from 8 NET/SET examination as aforesaid to the University Grants Commission within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of said proposal from Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 11. At this stage, Advocate Shri Barlinge for the writ petitioner has made a categorical statement that the present writ petitioner shall not claim any back wages from the date of termination till his reinstatement i.e. from 14.2.1998 till 12.5.2007. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shall pay the salary of the petitioner from the date of reinstatement till actual approval by the University Grants Commission to the relaxation of condition of passing NET/SET examination. On such approval Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shall be entitled to reimbursement of salary amounts as grants from Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 12. With directions as above, Writ Petition is disposed of. pnd/wp4951.000 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)