Back
2010 (5) Supreme 616
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Ramesh Gajendra Jadhav — Appellant
versus
Secretary, Late S.G.S.P. Mandal & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7215 of 2008
Decided on : 22-07-2010
Facts of the Case :
Services of appellant were terminated herein in the instant case by Principal of the respondent college. An appeal was filed by appellant Challenging said order. Grievance of appellant was that he had been appointed as a regular lecturer of Geography in said College and oral termination was unjustified, contrary to Rules and without any basis. Tribunal accepted appeal of appellant and order of termination was quashed and set aside. Writ Petition thereagainst was Allowed by High Court holding that the post of lecturer in Geography was not meant for open category candidates but was reserved for SC category alone. Court also declined to give advantage to appellant on account of any mistake of authorities concerned. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by Division Bench of High Court.
2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Selection Committee was at fault in selecting candidate as full time lecturer, while admittedly advertisement had been given for a post of part time lecturer in Geography. Eligible candidates, if knew, that the post was that of ‘full time lecturer in Geography’ would have applied in larger number and even with better qualifications. Number of candidates had been denied an opportunity of competing for this post. Post which was advertised as part time was treated as full time, that too under the general category only on the pretext that the University had written a letter that the post of Geography lecturer was full time while completely ignoring the stand of the College when it had sought clarification from the University to remove the confusion created by this stand. Thus, it was not a case where post of full time lecturer in Geography in general category was available. It was neither desirable nor fair for all the Authorities concerned to make this appointment in manner in which it has been done, even if the Selection Committee had recorded it minutes to that effect. But this mistake not vested indefeasible legal right in the appellant to be appointed or deemed to have been appointed against a reserve category while he was a candidate, admittedly, belonging to the open category and was so appointed by the Selection Committee. Hence appeal having no merit was dismissed.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J. —
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 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.
2.Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 7 th December, 2006, the appellant filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which was also dismissed vide order dated 6th June, 2007. The Division Bench held as under:
“6. The finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge was based on the record, which clearly indicates that the post of lecturer in Geography was reserved for S.C. candidate and not for the candidate from open category and, therefore, the Single Judge held that the decision of the Tribunal was not justified while allowing the appeal of the Management.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that for no fault of the appellant, his services could not have been discontinued and the findings of the School Tribunal are findings of fact, which cannot be held to be perverse so as to call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
8. We find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is based on the correct state of affairs which was ignored by the Tribunal, which based its findings on the advertisement, pursuant to which the appellant was selected, however, the said advertisement was not correct.
9. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that merely because the Authorities have committed an error in the matter of the advertisement of the post and though it was approved by the University, was also not correct and the University, subsequently, rectified its error by canceling the approval of the appellant. The appellant has no case. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.”
3.Aggrieved by the reasoning and decision of the Division Bench, the appellant filed the present appeal.
4.The controversy in the present case falls in a very narrow campus: Whether a mistake of fact rectified subsequently in relation to implementation of roaster of reservation would be a sufficient reason for terminating the services of a person appointed under that mistaken impression? To answer this question, we need to notice the facts which have given rise to the present appeal.
5.The college in question was established in the year 1
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
