Bombay High Court
Principal Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar ... vs Presiding Officer, College ... on 8 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp2927.95
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.2927 OF 1995
1) Principal Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
College, Bramhapuri, District -
Chandrapur.
2) Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Education
Society, through its President,
Bramhapuri, District - Chandrapur. .... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) Presiding Officer,
College Tribunal, Main Building,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
Vidyapeeth, Aurangabad.
2) Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Rahim,
Aged 29 years,
R/o At Post - Moregaon, Tq.-Moregaon,
District - Yavatmal.
3) Nagpur University, Nagpur,
through its Registrar. .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners,
Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, A.G.P. for the respondent No.1,
None for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATED : 8
JUNE, 2016.
th
2 wp2927.95
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners/
employer and Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent No.1.
None for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2.
The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the
University and College Tribunal allowing the appeal filed by the
respondent No.2, quashing the notice/order dated 30-03-1993
informing the respondent No.2 that he will cease to be in service from
31-03-1993 and directing the petitioners to reinstate the respondent
No.2 in the post in which he was earlier working as temporary
Teacher.
3. The respondent No.2 had filed appeal before the Tribunal
challenging the notice dated 30-03-1993 contending that his services
were illegally terminated. According to the respondent No.2, he was
appointed after the post was advertised, interviews were conducted
and the respondent No.2 was selected. The respondent No.2 claimed
that his appointment was approved by the Vice-Chancellor of the
University. In these facts, the respondent No.2 claimed that he was
3 wp2927.95
appointed on probation and therefore, his services could not have been
terminated by the impugned notice.
4. The petitioners opposed the claim of the respondent No.2
contending that the appointment of the respondent No.2 was not in a
clear vacancy and therefore, it cannot be said that his appointment was
on probation.
5. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal
allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.2, quashed the notice
dated 30-03-1993 and directed the petitioners to reinstate the
respondent No.2 as temporary Teacher.
It is the case of the petitioners that the faculty of Science
was started by the petitioners in academic year 1990-91 and the
respondent No.2 was appointed as Teacher for Physics in the academic
year 1992-93. In paragraph No.4 of the petition, the petitioners have
stated that the faculty of Science which was administered in the
petitioner-College is closed down from the academic year 1995-96.
There is nothing on record to disbelieve the above submissions made
on behalf of the petitioners on oath.
4 wp2927.95
6. It is admitted that the post in which the respondent No.2
was appointed, was advertised, the interviews were conducted and the
respondent No.2 was selected after undergoing the interviews and the
appointment of the respondent No.2 was approved. The respondent
No.2 has not challenged the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting his
claim that his appointment was on probation.
In the above facts, I see no reason to interfere with the
order passed by the Tribunal to the extent the notice dated 30-03-1993
is quashed.
7. This Court, by the order dated 28-09-1995, issued notice
and granted interim order which continues till today. Because of the
interim order granted by this Court, the respondent No.2 was not
reinstated and was not paid the emoluments. To balance the equities,
in my view, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioners to pay an
amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) towards compensation
in lieu of reinstatement and emoluments. The petitioners shall pay the
amount of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent No.2 till 30-07-2016 by
demand draft, failing which the amount of Rs.50,000/- shall carry
interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 01-08-1995 till the amount is paid
to the respondent No.2.
5 wp2927.95
8. The petition is disposed in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
adgokar
