Advocates:
['SHANTANU S GHATE', 'ROHIT P MASURKARROHIT P MASURKAR', 'SHARAD W GHATE', 'DNYANDEEP P BHONGADE', 'ARUN PANJABRAO GIRHE', 'ROHIT P MASURKAR', 'GOVERNMENT PLEADER', 'FOR R', 'NARESH R SABOO', 'CAV/R']

26-WP-3138-15

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.3138 OF 2015

The Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical and Education Society, Nagpur. Thr. its

Secretary and anr.

-vs-

Commissioner, Office of Commissioner of Social Welfare, Pune and anr.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office notes, Office Memoranda of

Coram, appearances, Court's orders

Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

Shri S. S. Ghate, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri S. Ahirkar, AGP for respondent No.1.

Shri N. R. Saboo, Advocate for respondent No.2.

CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.

DATE : JUNE 13, 2016

Heard.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the

judgment dated 27/02/2015 passed by the learned Presiding

Officer, University and College Tribunal, Nagpur thereby

allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No.2 and

directing his reinstatement with back-wages.

According to the respondent No.2, he was appointed on

the post of 'Driver' vide appointment order dated

15/10/2010. This appointment was on probation for a

period of two years. The services of the respondent No.2

came to be discontinued by communication dated

20/04/2013. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.2 filed an

appeal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act,

1994. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has allowed

the aforesaid appeal.

Shri S. S. Ghate, the learned counsel for the petitioner

26-WP-3138-15

2/3

submitted that the respondent No.2 did not complete the

period of probation and his services were terminated with

effect from 31/08/2012. According to him, various

communications were issued to the respondent No.2 as he

remained absent from duty but there was no satisfactory

explanation to these communications. He submitted that the

Tribunal was not justified in holding that the termination was

effected retrospectively inasmuch as the order dated

30/04/2013 was merely a relieving order. It was then

submitted that on the post held by the respondent No.2

another employee by name B. D. Joge had been appointed

and the proposal with regard to his approval was pending

with the Authorities.

Shri N. R. Saboo, the learned counsel for the

respondent No.2 supported the impugned order. According

to him, the respondent No.2 had completed the period of

probation. The order dated 20/04/2013 itself was the

termination order which stated that the services were being

terminated from 31/08/2012. According to him, the

Tribunal rightly held that such retrospective termination of

services was not legally permissible. He then submitted that

initially one Gajanan Charhe was stated to have been

appointed in place of respondent No.2 and after his death

another employee by name B. D. Joge was appointed. He

submitted that the right of respondent No.2 could not be

taken away by making a subsequent appointment.

I have heard the respective counsel for the parties at

length. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the

respondent No.2 completed the period of probation is

justified in view of the fact that the communication dated

15/04/2013 issued by the Management itself states that on

26-WP-3138-15

3/3

the said date a proposal for terminating the services of

respondent No.2 was under consideration of the

Management. Similarly, the communication dated

20/04/2013 states that the services of the respondent No.2

were being terminated from 31/08/2012. There is no

communication on record by which the respondent No.2 was

informed that his services were being terminated prior to

completion of the period of probation. On that ground the

finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted.

In so far the aspect of the right of a subsequent

appointee