The main legal point established is the requirement for specific grounds for termination, fulfillment of workload requirements, and adherence to the approval process for appointments in the Grant-in-Aid Scheme.

F.M. REIS, J.

Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2, Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 and 4 and Ms. A. Agni, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.5

2. The above petition takes exception to the order of termination passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the services of the petitioner as a Teacher on regular basis in the College of the respondents No.3 and 4 came to be terminated.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the College run by the respondents No. 3 and 4, which is covered under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme of the State Government, had invited applications for filling up two posts of Lecture in the Department of Botany, out of which, one post was to be filled up on regular basis in the unreserved category and the other on lecture basis. In response to such advertisement, the petitioner applied on 12/9/2008 to the Full Time post of Lecturer in the Botany Department and was selected. The approval to such post was conveyed by the respondent No.2 on 18/07/2008 to fill up the post of Full Time Lecturer in the Botany Department. The respondent No.5 conveyed their approval to the appointment of the petitioner on 26/9/2008. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed on 12/11/2011 that her appointment as a Lecturer in Botany Department of the said College stands terminated with immediate effect. The petitioner raised a challenge to the said order of termination by filing a Writ Petition before this Court which came to be disposed of on 16/12/2011, inter alia, setting aside the said order of termination and directing the Authorities to issue a show cause notice and decide such a show cause notice, in accordance with law. Consequently, on 28/12/2011, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent No.3, calling upon the petitioner to show cause within 10 days as to why the services of the petitioner should not be terminated. The petitioner filed her reply disputing the contents of the show cause notice and ultimately, on 30/03/2012, the services of the petitioner, as a Full Time Lecturer in the Botany Department were terminated with immediate effect. But, however, giving an option to the petitioner to be appointed on lecture basis. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the above writ petition.

4. Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the impugned order of termination issued by the respondent No.3 has no basis in law as, according to him, the petitioner was appointed on a regular post, after undergoing the regular recruitment process. The learned Senior Counsel further points out that the grounds on which the respondent No.3 sought to take action against the petitioner are totally erroneous as, according to him, taking of 21 periods for complying with the requirement to receive the grants from the State Government is a matter of internal arrangement which had to be followed by the respondents No.3 and 4. The learned Senior Counsel further points out that the College of the respondents No.3 and 4 has two divisions, one wherein they impart education on self-financing scheme and the College section comes under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme of the State Government. The learned Counsel further submits that merely because there was an Audit action with regard to the payment of salary to the petitioner on the ground that the respondents No.3 and 4 were asking the petitioner to give some lectures in the self-financing scheme, the services of the petitioner were illegally sought to be terminated. The learned Counsel further submits that in any event, a Teacher working in the College of respondents No.3 and 4 had already retired in the year 2011 and, as such, the petitioner was rendering 21 periods in the College section at the time when the impugned order of termination was passed. The learned Counsel furt