Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Shrikant D.Kulkarni, J.
Asha Dagdu Akolkar – Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Education Society – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4869 of 2020, 1574 of 2021,Civil Application No. 2969 of 2022
Decided On : 04-05-2022
M.C.Syed, Advocate, Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate, Priya S.Gondhalekar, Advocate, R.B.Dhaware, Advocate, K.M.Suryawanshi, Advocate, S.G.Sangle, Advocate, R.N.Dhorde, Advocate, V.R.Dhorde, Advocate, P.S.Dighe, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the change in status of an employee from a permanent position to a clock hour basis must follow due procedure as provided under the University Act and Regulations/Rules, and any illegal termination from a permanent position is subject to appeal under sec. 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.
Headnote:
Termination of Services - University and College Tribunal - Sec. 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 - The Tribunal has rightly recorded the finding that changing the status of Mr Bharat Nalge from a lecturer on permanent basis to clock hour basis amounts to illegal termination from the post of permanent lecturer. The petitions have been dismissed on their own merits.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute regarding the change in status of Mr Bharat Nalge from a permanent lecturer to clock hour basis, which was deemed to be illegal termination by the University and College Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground of want of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, but the High Court remanded the proceedings to the Tribunal. After rehearing the matter, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and directed the reinstatement of Mr Bharat Nalge on the vacant post of permanent lecturer in Public Administration subject.
Finding of the Court:
The University and College Tribunal found that the change in status of Mr Bharat Nalge from a permanent lecturer to clock hour basis amounted to illegal termination from the post of permanent lecturer. The Tribunal dismissed the petitions on their own merits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the change in status of Mr Bharat Nalge from a permanent lecturer to clock hour basis amounted to termination of his services as a permanent lecturer or reduction in rank.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal held that the change in status of Mr Bharat Nalge from a permanent lecturer to clock hour basis amounted to illegal termination from the post of permanent lecturer, as he had completed his probation period and become permanent on the said post.
Final Decision: Both the Writ Petitions were dismissed, and the Rule was discharged. The Court ordered that no costs be awarded, and the record and proceedings be sent back to the University and College Tribunal, Aurangabad. The request for continuation of interim relief was turned down.
JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for both the sides, heard finally at the admission stage.
2. Both the petitions are directed against the Judgment and order dtd. 9/3/2020 passed by the Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Aurangabad in Appeal No. BAMU-02/2013.
3. It is necessary to have a glance on the factual scenario for deciding the petitions.
(a) The Hindustan Education Society (petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No. 1574/2021) is a minority institution and runs Sharadchandra Mahavidyalaya at Shiradhon, Tal. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad (petitioner No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 1574/2021). Dr Mrs Asha Dagadu Akolkar was appointed as a lecturer in Public Administration subject for the academic year 2002-2003. At that time, Dr Asha Akolkar was not having requisite qualification with NET/SET or Ph.D. She was appointed from year to year basis and subject to approval by the College Management and the University. She was Master in Arts. In order to fill-up vacant post of lecturer for the subject of Public Administration, the education institute and College (referred above) have issued advertisement in the newspaper. The Selection Committee was constituted. Mr Bharat Madhukarrao Nalge had applied for the post of lecturer in Public Administration. He was having requisite qualification NET/SET. The Selection Committee after conducting the interview of Mr Bharat Nalge, selected him on 6/7/2009. Mr Bhart Nalge joined the college (Sharadchandra Mahavidyalaya) on the post of lecturer to teach subject of Public Administration on 6/7/2009. Mr Bharat Nalge was appointed on the probation of two years. Necessary approval was also accorded by Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University (B.A.M.U.), Aurangabad. There was sufficient work load in the college for one lecturer to teach the subject of Public Administration.
(b) In the meanwhile, Dr Mrs Asha Akolkar completed her M.Phil from Madurai Kamraj University by way of distance education. According to the stand taken by the education institution and its college, a candidate who has passed M.Phil is exempted from NET/SET and eligible for the post of lecturer. As such, the education institution submitted the proposal to the University for approval of Dr Mrs Asha Akolkar which was turned down by the University. The real problem cropped up when the education institution sent proposal for approval of Dr Mrs Asha Akolkar for the post of lecturer in a subject of Public Administration. The University raised objection as to how the institution has submitted the proposal when there was only one sanctioned post of lecturer for the subject of Public Administration and that too when Mr Nalge was appointed on the said post earlier. As a result, University had cancelled the approval for one post of the lecturer in the subject of Public Administration. The education institution issued order dtd. 18/1/2013, thereby putting Mr Bharat Nalge and Dr Mrs Asha Akolkar on clock hour basis.
(c) Feeling aggrieved by the fresh appointment on clock hour basis, Mr Bharat Nalge has knocked the doors of the University and College Tribunal, Aurangabad by making education institution, College, University, Joint Director and Dr Mrs Asha Akolkar as the party respondents. The University Tribunal vide Judgment and order dtd. 1/9/2016 was pleased to dismiss the appeal on the ground of want of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. It is noteworthy that Dr Asha Akolkar has not challenged the order dtd. 18/1/2013.
(d) That Judgment and order passed by the University Tribunal dtd. 1/9/2016 was challenged before the High Court vide Writ Petition No. 12225/2016. This Court under order dtd. 3/12/2018 was pleased to remand the proceedings to the University and College Tribunal, Aurangabad by setting aside the order dtd. 1/9/2016 with following directions :-
"The Tribunal will decide the question as to whether withdrawal of the status of the petitioner as a permanent lecturer w
