Judgment

SAWANT, J.:- The two questions raised in this appeal are:

(i) whether the employment notice issued by the respondent-University on July 27, 1984 ought to have indicated reservations postwise, and

(ii) whether, assuming that the said notice was invalid the termination of services of the appellants on April 21, 1987 was valid?

2. The University issued the employment notice in question inviting applications for a total of 77 posts which included 13 posts of Professors, 29 posts of Readers and 35 posts of Lecturers in different subjects ranging from Economics, Politics and Sociology to Physics, Pharmacy and Geology. The notice mentioned total number of reservations categorywise but not subjectiwise as follows:

Professors - Scheduled Castes-3, Scheduled Tribes-2 and VJ/ NT- 1

Readers - Scheduled Castes-6, Scheduled Tribes-4 and VJ/ NT-2

Lecturers - Scheduled Castes-7, Scheduled Tribes-5 and VJ/ NT-4.

A number of applications were received for the posts from candidates including the petitioners belonging to both reserved and non reserved castes for all the three categories of posts, viz., Professors, Readers and Lecturers. This advertisement was corrected by corrigendum of February 1, 1985. Thereafter, a further employment notice for additional posts in all the three categories was issued on August 1, 1985 but we are not concerned with the same. Different selection committees in all 53 in number were constituted and they recommended 47 candidates for 53 posts. It appears that while recommending the selections, the committees also gave weightage to the candidates belonging to the reserved castes. Thereafter, the Executive Council constituted a sub-committee to decide which posts should be reserved for the reserved castes. On the recommendation of the subcommittee and after taking into consideration the backlog of reservations, the Executive Council decided to keep apart 17 posts and made permanent appointments only to 30 out of 47 candidates by its appointment orders issued on March 30, 1985 for the academic year 1985-86. As regards 17 posts which were kept apart for reserved candidates, it decided to fill in the same by temporary appointments for those pending the availability of the suitable candidates from reserved castes.

3. It appears that against these appointments some social workers and organisations made representations to the Chancellor making a grievance both against the employment notice as well as the procedure followed in making the said appointments. By his order dated February 22, 1986, the Chancellor appointed a one-man committee under Section 76 of the Nagpur University Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to inquire into the matter. The committee submitted its report on September 24, 1986 which was accepted by the Chancellor.

4. In the meanwhile, a batch of writ petitions was filed in the High Court challenging the employment notice on the ground that the non-obtaining of the recommendation from the Board of University Teaching and Research (BUTR for short) before issuing the employment notice was bad in law in view of the provisions of Section 32(2)(iii) of the Act. The High Court accepting this contention quashed the employment notice and set aside the appointments to the posts which were challenged in those petitions. In all the petitions the Court also restrained the University from making any appointment without obtaining the recommendations from the BUTR.

Taking into consideration both the report of the one-man committee and also the decision of the High Court, the Chancellor directed the Vice-Chancellor to terminate the service of all the appointees including the appellants and accordingly the Vice-Chancellor issued orders of termination of services of the appellants and others similarly appointed on April 21, 1987. The termination orders mentioned four grounds as follows:

(a) the reservation policy adopted by the University was contrary to Section 57 of the Act;

(b) the decision of the Executive C