JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard. Perused the records.

2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 6-4-1994, passed by the College Tribunal in Appeal No. 21 of 1992. The challenge is on four grounds. Firstly, that no appeal was maintainable against the order dated 8-2-1992 as the respondent (No. 1) was only a probationer and not a regular employee. Secondly, there was no sufficient cause disclosed for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Thirdly, the Tribunal erred in placing reliance upon various rulings without ascertaining whether they are applicable to the facts of the case and, fourthly, that merely because the employee was asked to hold additional charge, it could not have been construed as a promotion to the employee. On the other hand, the impugned order is sought to be justified on the ground that the petitioner never disclosed the reason for termination of the services of the respondent and it was never the case of the petitioner, either in the appeal or in the petition that the services of the respondent, while on probation were not satisfactory. Referring to the Clause 9 of the appointment letter, it is contended that in case of termination of service during the academic year, the notice period could not have been made to expire prior to the last date of the academic term in the absence of payment of the salary for the entire remaining period of the academic term at the time of issuance of the notice of termination of the services of the respondent. Reliance is placed by the respondent in the decisions of the Apex Court in the matters of (Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere v. Union of India and others)1, reported in 1990(1) Bom.C.R. 97 and (Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P. others)2, reported in 2000(II) C.L.R. 347.

3. Undisputedly, the respondent herein was regularly appointed on probation to a full time post of Assistant Professor in the petitioners engineering college by appointment order dated 24-4-1991. The probation period was to be of two years. The selection and the appointment to the said post was duly approved by the University of Bombay, and the same was communicated by the University by its letter dated 24-9-1991 and was accordingly communicated by the Principal of the College to the respondent by his letter dated 4-10-1991. Further, by order dated 30-1-1992, consequent to disapproval of the appointment of one Dr. K.C. Arora as the Professor of Mechanical Engineering by the University of Bombay, the respondent was given charge of the head of the Production/Machine Tool Department, till further orders. However, by the order dated 8-2-1992, the respondent was informed that his services as the Assistant Professor were terminated with immediate effect and he was asked to collect his dues in lieu of the notice period of one month on submission of a no-due certificate from the concerned department and also a certificate of having handed over the charge to Dr. Munshi Srinivas. Immediately, he was relived from the services of the petitioners college. By letter dated 23-2-1992, the respondent, through his Advocate, called upon the petitioner to disclose the reason for the termination of his services. The said letter was followed by another letter dated 21-3-1992 by the Advocate for the respondent, addressed to the petitioner. The petitioner, however, did not reply the said letters. The respondent thereafter on 2-7-1992 filed the Appeal No. 21 of 1992 before the College Tribunal challenging the order of termination while contending that the services rendered by the respondent as the probationer were satisfactory. The petitioner disputed the claim of the respondent that the services rendered by the respondent were satisfactory. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal and held that the order of termination was illegal and the same was set aside and the respondent was held to be entitled for reinstatement in the same post in the petitioners college. The respondent was dire

Click Here to Read the rest of this document