Bombay High Court
Prakash Jagannath Nagargoje vs Principal Jamkhed Mahavidyalaya ... on 1 September, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4528 OF 1995
Prakash Jagannath Nagargoje,
Age-Major, Occu-Nil,
R/o Dutta Niwas, Raut Bunglow,
Tapneshwar Gully, At and Post.Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahmednagar -- PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The Principal,
Jamkehd Mahavidyalaya,
Jamkhed, Dist.Ahmednagar,
2. The President,
People's Education Society,
Jamkhed, Dist.Ahmednagar,
3. The Registrar,
Pune University,
Pune-7,
4. Nitin Ramdas Salve,
Lecturer in Botany,
Jamkhed Mahavidyalaya,
Jamkhed, Dist.Ahmednagar,
5. Sham Manik Baraskar,
Age-Major, Occu-Lecturer
in Botany,
Jamkhed Mahavidyalaya of
Peoples Education Society,
Jamkhed Taluka Jamkhed,
Dist.Ahmednagar -- RESPONDENTS
Mr.Ajinkya Kale h/f Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.V.S.Bedre, Advocate for repsondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are served.
khs/SEPT.2016/4528-d
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 01/09/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 20/01/1995
by which his Appeal No.56/1994 has been dismissed by the College
Tribunal.
2. I have heard Mr.Kale, learned Advocate for the petitioner at
length and Mr.Bedre, learned Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos.
1 and 2. None appears for respondent Nos. 3 to 5, though served.
3. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates
and have gone through the petition paper book with their assistance.
4. The petitioner was aggrieved by his oral termination w.e.f.
01/07/1995. He preferred an appeal before the College Tribunal
alleging unlawful termination and claimed reinstatement with
continuity and full back wages for the period 01/03/1994 till
30/06/1995 and from 01/07/1995 till his reinstatement.
5. It is submitted that the respondent/Management published an
khs/SEPT.2016/4528-d
advertisement in 'Nagar Kesari' on 06/05/1991. One post of Lecturer
in 'Botany' reserved for the SC category was advertised. One
Mr.Bolbhat was selected. However, he did not join. The petitioner,
therefore, filed an application on 23/07/1991 and he was appointed
'against category' on 24/07/1991 for one academic year 1992-93.
6. A similar advertisement was published on 29/05/1992. One
post for Open and one post for Reserved Category in 'Botany' was
available. The petitioner applied from the Open Category. He
received the call letter dated 08/08/1992. He claims to have been
selected from the Open Category as he did not belong to the SC
category. However, the selection committee's report dated
16/08/1992, though initially indicated that the petitioner was
selected from the Open Category, there were interpolations made
subsequently and Mr.Baraskar, who belonged to the Open Category
was shown to have been appointed from the said category. The
petitioner was, therefore, shown to be against the reserved Category.
7. A similar advertisement was published on 04/07/1993 and a
similar exercise was undertaken. The petitioner was not selected
from the Open Category though he had applied.
khs/SEPT.2016/4528-d
8. Thereafter, there was again an advertisement in 1994 and
Mr.B.K.Awchar was selected from the SC category to the post
reserved for that category. The petitioner was not selected.
9. Again on 16/07/1995, there was a yet another advertisement
and Mr.Nitin Salve was selected. The petitioner was not selected.
10.
Contention is that the petitioner has worked continuously from
25/07/1991 till 30/06/1994 and as such, his oral termination dated
30/06/1994 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
11. Mr.Bedre, learned Advocate for the Management has
strenuously supported the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.
12. I find from the facts emerging from the record that the
petitioner had worked for 3 academic years against a reserved post.
The Government Resolution dated 27/03/1991 permitting
interchangeability of the reserved posts specifically provides for
engaging candidates against the reserved categories if candidates
from those categories are not available, for a period of 3 years in case
of promotions and for a period of 5 years in case of direct
recruitment. If candidates from the reserved categories are not
khs/SEPT.2016/4528-d
available for these posts, the said posts can be interchanged and can
then be reserved for the next category as per the Rules.
13. The petitioner had worked for only 3 academic years, though he
contends that he had worked till 1995. I find the said submission to
be fallacious since he preferred his appeal in 1994 before the College
Tribunal alleging termination and the impugned judgment is dated
01/01/1995.
14. In so far as alleged interpolations in the Selection Committee's
report dated 16/08/1992 are concerned, the Tribunal has verified
that the purported interpolations bear the signatures of some of the
Committee members and therefore no fault can be found with the
same. Nevertheless, it is informed that pursuant to the said
selection report, none of the candidates were appointed and the
petitioner had continued against the reserved category. I, therefore,
do not find any perversity in the conclusion of the Tribunal.
15. Be that as it may, the petitioner has worked for 3 academic
years against reserved category post and is out of employment for 21
years. Mr.Bedre submits on oral instructions that the Management
has received some information which is yet to be verified that the
khs/SEPT.2016/4528-d
petitioner has been in employment and presently is the Acting
Principal in the Chhatrapati Shivaji B.Ed. College. Mr.Kale clarifies
that he was working in the said Institution for some period and not
continuously till this date.
16. In the light of the above, since the Government Resolution
dated 27/03/1991 is of no assistance to the petitioner and
considering the fact that he had worked against a reserved category
post for 3 academic years, I do not find that his disengagement could
be termed as being illegal. For the said reasons, the impugned
judgment does not appear to be perverse or erroneous.
17. This petition, being devoid of merit, is therefore dismissed.
18. Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/SEPT.2016/4528-d
