JUDGMENT - D.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---This petition is filed by one Tanaji Mahadev Nikam who was terminated from his service as clerk by respondent No. 1 as per Exhibit G dated 28-4-1988 which is signed and sent by Secretary of respondent No. 1. It is stated in the said termination order Exhibit G that the petitioner was working as a Junior Clerk and was found involved in financial irregularities, and therefore, an inquiry was held against him and since he was found guilty, the Executive Committee of respondent No. 1 had decided in its meeting dated 23-4-1988 to terminate his service under Rule 43(B)(5) of the Standard Code, 1984. Accordingly the service of the petitioner were terminated from 1-5-1988, and he should have to hand over his charge on 30-4-1988.

2. The petitioner challenged this termination order before the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal, Shivaji/Pune University, Pune vide Appeal No. 27 of 1988. It appears from the record Exhibit K, which is an order of the College Tribunal, that one employee by name Ramchandra S. Potakar of respondent No. 1 had filed similar appeal before the College Tribunal and both the appeals were decided to hear jointly.

3. While the appeals were pending respondent No. 1 raised preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of the College Tribunal to entertain and decide the appeal. This objection of the respondent was up held and the College Tribunal dismissed both appeals for want of jurisdiction by its order dated 2-9-1988. Hence this appeal.

4. I heard Mr. Subhash Langote for the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Mohite for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Nargolkar A.G.P. for State/respondents.

5. Before considering the submissions of Mr. Langote it is necessary to understand the nature of preliminary objection raised by respondent No. 1 before the College Tribunal. In that regard it was submitted by Mr. Mohite that respondent No. 1 is neither a college nor the recognized institute. Respondent No. 1 was an independent institute registered under the Societies Act, having separate existence and having a large administrative wing, and number of persons were employed in different capacities, and therefore, the petitioner who was admittedly working in respondent No. 1 institute and was not working in any of the colleges of the institution, then petitioner had no right to challenge the termination order under any provision of the Shivaji University Act, particularly under section 42(B) of the said Act. The College Tribunal up held his contention and held that the petitioner was not the employee of any college or recognized institute and respondent No. 1 did not fall in the definition of Clause 2(23) of the Shivaji University Act, and therefore, the College Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

6. As against this it was contended by Counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 1 had adopted Standard Code 1984 prescribed by the Government and the petitioner was terminated from the service under section 42(B)(5) of the Standard Code, but since the Standard Code did not provide any remedy of appeal, the petitioner was required to file appeal under the provisions of the Shivaji University Act, the Act squarely applies to the facts of the case and the College Tribunal was in erred in holding that it has no jurisdiction. Secondly, it was contended by Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the affidavit filed by one Ramchandra Potekar that though respondent No. 1 was known as Rayat Shikshan Sanstha and was having number of employees, it was not that the employees of respondent No. 1 Sanstha were never transferred to the colleges or other educational institutions of respondent No. 1. Deponent Mr. Potekar has also given nine examples wherein all those nine employees who were employed by respondent No. 1 and who were working in the office of respondent No. 1 were transferred to the educational institutions i.e. school and colleges, and therefore, according to Counsel for the petitioner, the status of responde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document