The main legal point established in the judgment is that the management's failure to adhere to the Government Resolutions extending the retirement age of Principals to 65, subject to a performance review at the age of 62, rendered the termination of the Principal's services illegal.

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

Heard Mr. C.K. Thomas, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Dighe, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2. This Writ Petition is directed against the judgement and order dated 25th November 2016, passed by the Learned Presiding Officer of the Mumbai University and College Tribunal. The Appeal filed by the 2nd Respondent, challenging his termination has been allowed in the following terms:

"(a) In the circumstances, having regard to the facts and circumstances, and considering the legal position, present appeal deserves to be allowed partly, and it is allowed partly, and it is held that action of oral otherwise termination by Respondent No.1 for not allowing the Appellant to sign the muster roll w.e.f. 15.06.2015 prior to his age of superannuation upto age of 65 years subject to report of Performance Review Committee on completion of 62 years, is illegal and same is quashed and set aside, with direction to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to reinstate the Appellant on the post of Principal in the Respondent No.2 Degree College w.e.f. 15.06.2015, with continuity of his service, back wages and consequential benefits, within the period of three months, and appeal stands disposed off with no order as to costs".

2. The case of the 2nd Respondent before the Tribunal was that the 2nd Respondent was appointed as a full time Principal in the Appellants Degree College with effect from 1st July 2005, initially on a probation for two years. He possessed the necessary qualifications, namely, a Ph.D, teaching experience etc. The University of Mumbai also granted approval to the appointment of the 2nd Respondent as a Principal on probation. Thereafter, the 2nd Respondent was appointed as a regular Principal on completing the probationary period.

3. The State of Maharashtra had issued Government Resolutions dated 25th February 2011, 5th March, 2011 and 23rd November 2011, accepting various recommendations of the University and the other concerned authorities, whereby it was directed that the provisions of the said Government Resolutions be implemented by all the aided/unaided colleges affiliated to the University. By these Government Resolutions, age of retirement of the Principals of aided colleges was extended from the age of 60 years to 65 years, subject to their 'performance review', on completion of the age of 62 years.

4. The case of the 2nd Respondent before the Tribunal was that he had completed 60 years on 13th February 2015, he was permitted to discharge the duties on the post of Principal up to 13th June 2015, which is for a period of 4 months after he attained the age of 60 years. It was his contention that attaining the age of 60 years was not the age of superannuation, as the age of superannuation was 65 years. Though he was continued in service after he attained 60 years of age, however, he was orally asked not to sign the muster from 15th June 2015. The 2nd Respondent contended that this action of the Petitioner/Management, amounted to oral termination. The 2nd Respondent also contended that in the staff profile maintained by the Petitioner Management, the date of his retirement was shown as 28022020, which was in consonance with the Government Resolutions issued by the State Government enhancing age of the retirement for the post of Principal to 65 years. Being aggrieved by this action of the Petitioner which according to the 2nd Respondent amounted to an arbitrary termination, the 2nd Respondent approached the University Tribunal seeking reinstatement of services.

5. Before the Tribunal the Petitioner/Management, contended that the 2nd Respondent was not entitled to be continued in services once he attains the age of 60 years, as according to the Petitioner, the 2nd Respondent superannuated having completed 60 years of age, and if at all he was to be continued in services then his performance was required to be reviewed by the 'performance review committee' as per the said Government Resolution and to be approv