ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard learned advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

2. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 13th October, 1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal Aurangabad in Appeal No. SRTMU/06/99. By the impugned order, the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 against the order of termination of his services dated 13-3-1999 has been allowed and the said order has been quashed and set aside and further the respondent No.1 is held to be entitled to continue to be in service subject to conditions as may be imposed by the University and further subject to condition of passing of NET/SET examination in accordance with the provisions of taw. The petitioners have been directed to pay the arrears of the salary of the respondent No.1 from 16th April, 1999 onwards.

3. The petitioner No. 1 is the institution registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also under the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950. It runs a Law College at Latur. Pursuant to the selection of the respondent No. 1 by the Selection Committee in its meeting, held on 17th June, 1998, respondent No. 1 came to be appointed as the lecturer in the said college by letter of appointment dated 17th June, 1998. The appointment of the respondent No. 1 was duly approved by the Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University Nanded vide its letter dated 9-9-1998. By letter dated 13-3-1999, the respondent No.1 was informed by the petitioners that his services in the said college as Lecturer in Law would stand terminated with effect from 15th of April 1999. Being aggrieved the respondent No.1 preferred an appeal bearing No. SRTMU/06/99 before the University and College Tribunal at Aurangabad and the same was allowed by the impugned Judgment.

4. It is the contention of the petitioners that the appointment of the respondent No. I was made for a fixed period of one year 1998-99 as he had not passed NET/SET examination and the approval by the University of his appointment was also for one academic year. It is also the contention of petitioners that the service rendered by the respondent No. 1 during the said period of one year was not satisfactory and even assuming that he was on probation, nothing prevented the petitioner from terminating his services on expiry of the probation period of one year. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent No. 1 that he was selected by following the due process of law as applicable to the petitioners college and in a clear vacancy; that he was appointed on probation initially for one year in view of the provisions contained in Government Resolution dated 22nd December, 1995 to enable the respondent No.1 to obtain necessary NET/SET qualifications; the action on the part of the petitioners; in seeking termination of the services of the respondent No. 1 abruptly after one year is arbitrary and clearly discriminatory as compared to treatment given to another person by name Girish V. S. Keshava Pillai who was also selected and appointed initially for one year along with the respondent No. 1 in the same manner as respondent No.1 was selected and appointed.

5. Upon hearing the learned advocates and on perusal of record it is seen that, the institution of the petitioner is governed by the Marathwada University Act 1974 in the matter of appointment of lecturers as well as pertaining to service conditions of such lecturers. It is not in dispute that the college run by the petitioners wherein respondent No. 1 was appointed is the college within the meaning of the said expression under section 2(6) of the said Act. Under section 42 of the said Act, the Senate of the University is empowered to make Statutes to provide for the various matters enumerated therein in relation to the teachers and other employees in affiliated colleges and recognized institutions, other than those managed and maintained by the State Government or the University and such matters include the qualifications required fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document