LAWS(BOM)-2011-4-91

SHIVAJI Vs. SECRETARY MARATHWADA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL

Decided On April 15, 2011
SHIVAJI Appellant
V/S
SECRETARY, MARATHWADA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the respective employees of the respondent 1 & 2 are challenging the common judgment delivered by the upheld by the College Tribunal. Looking to the nature of controversy, both matters are heard finally by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

(2.) Shri Dhoble, the learned Counsel for Petitioners has contended that petitioner Shivaji had worked for almost 10 years prior to his sudden termination and was selected by duly constituted selection committee at least on 4 occasions. Other petitioner Arun had also worked for about 3 years after undergoing similar selection process. They were already M.Sc., B.Ed. & M.Phil. in concerned subjects ie physics & botany respectively and selection was after public advertisement. He invites attention to communication dated 9/12/2004 by University Grants Commission ( UGC for short) stating that candidates not clearing NET/ SLET examination can be appointed when NET/ SLET qualified candidates are not available when interviews were held. The proposal to appoint such non-NET/SLET holders are to be submitted to it for scrutiny & cleared by it. Consequential policy came to be issued by the State Government on 13/1/2005. More than 2 years thereafter the proposals of these petitioners were then forwarded by the management to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar University, Aurangabad ie. BAMU on 3/9/2007 for its onward transmission to UGC. The UGC vide its letter dated 6/2/2008 relaxed the NET/SLET condition for petitioners subject to their clearing the NET examination in concerned subject within 2 years from the date of communication of exemption to them. Immediately thereafter, the management by order dated 30/4/2008 informed them that their appointments were coming to an end on very same day & hence, terminated & relieved them. This was then challenged by filing two appeals under Section 59 of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994 and by impugned common judgment dated 5/10/2010, the College Tribunal dismissed their appeals after holding that their appointments were for specified period and hence, they could not have been continued further. Approval given by BAMU to both petitioners on 4/7/2008 for period of two years from 6/2/2008 as per UGC relaxation & subject to orders of Nagpur bench of this High Court is relied upon to demonstrate the highhandedness in the action of management and error in approach of College Tribunal. It is urged that after 6/2/2008, there was no question of their appointments coming to an end by efflux of time. Adv. Dhoble states that both the petitioners cleared M. Phil. examination within the period stipulated by UGC & by BAMU and hence, had every right to claim relief of reinstatement. Division Bench judgment of the Nagpur bench Sudhir S/o Sharadrao Hunge vs. State of Maharashtra, 2010 4 MhLJ 572 is also pressed into service to point out that insertion of NET SLET qualification is by government notification dated 11/7/2009 and the same is not retrospective.

(3.) Adv. Bharad for Rs. 1 & 2 management has supported the order of the College Tribunal. He invites attention to advertisement in pursuance to which petitioners were given job to urge the need of NET/ SLET qualification and points out that in absence of said qualification, management had no option but to appoint them on contract basis. There was no selection & appointments after 6/2/2008 when UGC granted them exemption of two years. The BAMU's approval on 4/7/2008 is inconsequential as petitioners were not then selected by duly constituted selection committee and their earlier appointments had lapsed due to efflux of time on 30/4/2008. After management issued fresh advertisement, it was incumbent for them to apply & participate in competitive selection process as exempted candidates. Even within specified period of two years the NET exam has not been cleared. They never had any right to post and in this situation view taken by College Tribunal does not call for any interference.