Principal Secretary,Nutur ... vs Dayanand Bhujangrao Salve And Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 6663 Bom

                                            1




                                                                             
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                     
                            WRIT PETITION NO.1156 OF 1997

    Principal/Secretary,
    Nutan Mahavidyalaya, Sailu




                                                    
    AND

    Mahavidyalaya Committee,




                                           
    Nutan Mahavidyalaya, Sailu,
    Tq.Pathri, Dist.Parbhani                              -- PETITIONER 

    VERSUS
                              
    1.     Dayanand Bhujangrao Salve,
                             
           Age-32 years, Occu-Nil,
           R/o Gayatri Nagar,
           At & Post : Sailu,
           Dist.Parbhani,
      


    2.     Presiding Officer, (Deleted)
           School Tribunal,
   



           Aurangabad                                     -- RESPONDENTS

Mr.V.P.Golewar h/f Mr.A.R.Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.L.Dhoble, Advocate for respondent No.1 (Absent).

Respondent No.2 is deleted.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) DATE : 24/11/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This matter was adjourned on 17/11/2016 as none appeared

for respondent No.1. Even today, none appears. Matter is of 1997

and hence I have proceeded to decide this matter on its merits.

khs/NOV.2016/1156-d

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 05/03/1997

delivered by the School Tribunal, by which Appeal No.110/1990 filed

by the respondent herein has been allowed and he has been granted

reinstatement with continuity and full back wages.

3. This Court, while admitting the matter on 11/01/2001, has

stayed the judgment.

4. It clearly appears from the record that the petitioner has

appointed the respondent by appointment order dated 16/07/1990

purely on temporary basis. His duration of temporary employment

was mentioned as 16/07/1990 upto 31/03/1991. There was no

selection process followed and the respondent was temporarily

appointed.

5. The record reveals that the respondent executed an

undertaking on 16/07/1990 that he is accepting the appointment

order with all conditions mentioned therein.

6. The record also reveals that in between 16/07/1990 upto

05/09/1990, the respondent was resorting to leave on a few

occasions. One incident of 05/09/1990 indicates that the practical

khs/NOV.2016/1156-d

examinations of the students were arranged and the respondent sent

a leave application to the said Chemistry Department through a

student. This had affected the conducting of the practicals. He was

therefore issued with a notice dated 05/09/1990 as to why he should

not be punished. After considering his reply, a fine of Rs.25/- was

imposed upon him. On 15/09/1990, the petitioner issued a notice of

one month to the respondent informing him that he is not found

satisfactory for the organization. He was accordingly relieved w.e.f.

15/10/1990.

7. I have gone through the impugned judgment of the School

Tribunal with the assistance of the learned Advocate for the

petitioner. The Tribunal has concluded that as the respondent had

worked for about 3 months, it is deemed that he was a regular

employee of the petitioner under the rules. The Tribunal further

concluded that the termination of the respondent is stigmatic and

without any disciplinary proceedings having been initiated. I cannot

concur with such conclusions of the Tribunal. The respondent was

appointed purely on temporary basis from 16/07/1990 till

31/03/1991. Considering the manner in which he was working, the

petitioner gave him an opportunity to explain his behaviour. Since he

was not working seriously, the petitioner issued an innocuous order

khs/NOV.2016/1156-d

which was accompanied with a notice of termination stating therein

that he was not found satisfactory for the Institution.

8. In the light of the above, I do not find that the disengagement

of the respondent after 3 months of temporary engagement could be

termed as being a stigmatic termination. The impugned judgment is

perverse, erroneous and clearly indicates non application of mind.

9. In the light of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of

prayer clause E, which reads as under :-

"e. Rule may kindly be made absolute and impugned judgment

and order dated 05/03/1997, Exh.'U', to this writ petition in Appeal No.110/1990 passed by learned Presiding Officer, School

Aurangabad, may kindly be quashed and set aside."

10. The impugned judgment, therefore, is quashed and set aside

and Appeal No.110/1990 stands dismissed.

11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/NOV.2016/1156-d