The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to make appointments strictly on merit as per Statute No. 195, and the importance of upholding principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.

A.K. MENON, J.

1. These two petitions are filed by a secondary teacher challenging the common order dated 31st January, 2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Pune, College Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 59 of 2002 and 3 of 2007. These petitions were taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission, considering the checkered history of the case. In the circumstances, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing.

2. In brief the impugned order sets aside an order of terminating service of respondent no. 3 dated 23rd June, 2003 and directs reinstatement of respondent no. 3 with continuity of service and all consequential benefits but without back wages from termination till reinstatement. The impugned order dismissed Appeal No. 59 of 2002 and partly allowed Appeal No. 3 of 2007. Appeal No. 59 of 2002 challenged an order dated 5th August, 2002 of whereby the services of respondent no. 3 were terminated. The Tribunal passed an order dated 11th March, 2003 whereby the petitioner was reinstated in service. Being aggrieved by the order, respondent no. 3 filed Writ Petition No. 4267 of 2003 which came to be allowed on 7th September, 2017 remanding the matter to the Tribunal with the direction to decide the matter afresh. Meanwhile, respondent no. 3 also filed Appeal No. 3 of 2007. Thus, Appeal Nos. 59 of 2002 and 3 of 2007 came to be decided by the common order impugned herein.

3. The facts that lead us to the present controversy arise as follows:

The petitioner and respondent no. 3 had both applied for the post of a full time lecturer in Marathi, subject to approval of the respondent nos.5 and 6 University. Respondent No. 1 is the President of a Trust which runs an educational institution by the name of Vijaysinh Yadav Art, Commerce and Science College, Peth Vadgaon, Taluka Hatkanagale, District Kolhapur. Respondent No. 2 is the principal of the college and respondent no. 4 is the Joint Director of Higher Education. The Respondent-Management issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of full time lecturer in Marathi in the open category. The petitioner and respondent no. 3 both having applied, were called for interviews on 13th October, 2000 at which the Selection Committee chose respondent no. 3, who was then placed at Serial No. 1. The petitioner was placed at Serial No. 2. It is the case of the petitioner (denied by respondent no. 3) that respondent no. 1 (Management) had sent an appointment order and letter to respondent no. 3 calling upon him to join duties within seven days. Apparently Respondent no. 3 did not join, as a result, the Management is believed to have informed the University (a fact denied by respondent no. 3) that the College had called upon respondent no. 3 to submit his degree certificate and mark-list of the NET/SET examination. It is undisputed that respondent no. 3 communicated to the University vide letter dated 26th May, 2001 that he is not interested in the post as the respondent college is run on a non-grant basis. It is contended that the management called upon the petitioner to join and issued an appointment order in favour of the petitioner on 22nd November, 2000 and was directed to join services with effect from 29th November, 2000 on probation for two years. Her appointment is said to have been approved by the University.

4. In Writ Petition No. 2669 of 2018, the contention of the petitioner is that respondent no. 3 was sent an appointment order but respondent no. 3 did not join the duties within seven days. It is Respondent no. 3's case that after the selection process, respondent no. 3 was not informed of his appointment and after eight months on or about 16th August, 2001, Respondent no. 3 complained to the University about the appointment of the petitioner. In view of the complaint from 23rd July, 2007, the petitioner was not allow