Ramesh Gajendra Jadhav vs Secretary, Late S.G.S.P.Mandal & Ors

1. The services of Ramesh Gajendra Jadhav, the appellant herein, were terminated by Principal of the respondent college on 18th August, 1999 who, then filed an appeal before Shivaji University & College Tribunal, Pune, University Campus under Section 59(1) of Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The grievance of the appellant was that he had been appointed as a regular lecturer of Geography in the said College and the oral termination was unjustified, contrary to Rules and without any basis. On the contrary, the College as well as University ought to have permitted him to continue as a regular lecturer in the College. The Tribunal, vide its judgment dated 21 st July, 2004 found substance in the case of the appellant and while accepting his appeal the order of termination was quashed and set aside and he was ordered to be reinstated w.e.f. 15th September 2000 with full back wages. The College 2 as well as the Secretary of Sambhaji Rao Garad Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mohol, Solapur District, filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay being Writ Petition No. 9935 of 2004, which the learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties and vide a detailed judgment accepted the Writ Petition by setting aside the order of the Tribunal and issuing certain directions. The High Court held that the post of the lecturer in Geography was not meant for open category candidates but was reserved for SC category alone. The Court also declined to give advantage to the present appellant on account of any mistake of the authorities concerned. Merely, because the appellant was selected, the Court declined to accept the contention that the appellant had an indefeasible right to the post. Resultantly, the Court sustained the order passed by the College and the University authorities.

5. The college in question was established in the year 1991. The Joint Director of Higher Education, Kohlapur Division had sent a letter approving the schedule of 4 appointment of lecturer wherein one additional post of part time lecturer was sanctioned vide letter dated 6th October, 1998. On the basis of this letter, the College had written to the University on 5th December,1998 seeking its approval for the draft advertisement to be published for filling up the vacancy including the post of lecturer of Geography. However, in the letter issued by the University granting approval to the post of lecturer for the subject of Geography was shown as part time in open category. On that basis, advertisement was issued, which appeared in the newspaper, for filling up the vacant posts. On 24th December, 1998, the college sent a letter to the University forwarding the copies of the advertisement and requesting for names of the persons to be appointed by Selection Committee. The University granted approval to the schedule of posts as proposed by the management but in the letter dated 1st January,1999 approval was shown to be granted for the post of lecturer for the subject of Geography as full time lecturer. After receiving this letter, the management of the college again wrote to the University bringing out this fact that there was a vacancy of part time lecturer in Geography, while the University granted approval to full time lecturer in that subject leading to some confusion. In the meanwhile, pursuant to the advertisement issued, candidates including the appellant had applied for the post and interviews were held on 22nd February, 1999. On 23rd February, 1999, the Selection Committee prepared its detailed 5 proceedings clearly demonstrating that the post for which the appellant was selected was a permanent post in open category. On the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the appellant was appointed as lecturer in the subject of Geography on probation vide letter of appointment dated 3rd March, 1999. The appellant joined the post. However, the University on 15th March, 1999, sent a letter stating therein that earlier advertisement was to be cancelled and new advertisement showing the post of lecturer in Geography as full time and reserved for SC category, is required to be issued. In fact, at that point of time, the University also asked the College as to how the advertisement for appointment of part time lecturer was issued as the post was full time and reserved for SC category. Vide their letter dated 12 th July, 1999, the College sent a detailed reply giving reference to all the events in response to which, the University, vide letter dated 18.8.1999 stated that those appointed on the post including the appellant must be treated as full time lecturer but only for the academic year 1999-2000 and in the meanwhile steps should be taken to fill up the vacancy keeping in view the direction that the post was reserved for SC category and it was a full time post of lecturer in Geography. The appellant had made a request in the meanwhile, submitting that he had been selected by a properly constituted Selection Committee and he should be given the appointment against a full time lecturer post. No response to the same was 6 received. The appellant filed a Writ Petition No. 1689/2000 praying for quashing and setting aside the letter dated 18th August,1999 issued by the University giving approval only for the academic year 1999-2000. This Writ Petition, when came up for hearing before the High Court, was dismissed vide order dated 22nd August, 2000. In furtherance to the advertisement, which appeared in the newspaper on 1st January 2001, amongst other persons Respondent No. 5 also submitted his application. Respondent No.5 belonged to a reserved category (SC), was selected and appointed as lecturer in Geography in the respondent college. Approval thereto was granted by the University on 2nd February, 2001. Thereafter, the appellant was not permitted to serve which resulted in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, as already noticed.

9. For these reasons, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.