Mamta D/O Gangadharrao Pawar vs Rashtrasanta Tukdoji Maharaj ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11166 Bom

                                          -1-                      15.WP.6624.2022.odt


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 6624/2022
                      Mamta D/o Gangadharrao Pawar
                                   Vs.
Rashtrasanta Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, through its Registrar, Nagpur
                                 & Ors.
*********************************************************************
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,        Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
*********************************************************************
               Mr. A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

                              CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 20th OCTOBER, 2022.

Heard Mr. Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Though the petitioner, was initially appointed on probation on 14.06.2013 (page 27), which was for the period of two years for which approval was granted on 29.02.2016 (page 31), she was again appointed on probation by the order dated 02.02.2015 (page 32). Another order dated 06.02.2018 (page 38), again appointed her on probation. The petitioner was relieved on 30.04.2019 (page 41), challenge to which, has been rejected by the University and College Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 13.04.2022, holding that the employment of the petitioner stood terminated automatically by efflux of time, as mentioned in the order dated 06.02.2018, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is due to ignorance of the provisions of Statue 53, Clause 4, which mandates that after the completion of period of probation of two years, the teacher shall either be confirmed

-2- 15.WP.6624.2022.odt

or his services dispensed with, provided that notice of such confirmation or termination of services shall be given at least one month before the due date, in absence of which, it shall be construed that he has completed the period of probation satisfactorily and that he is deemed to be confirmed in service. It is contended that since the probation already stood completed, in pursuance to the initial order dated 14.06.2013, the deeming provision clearly came to be attracted, as there is no provision, to continue the probation from time to time.

3. Issue notice for final disposal, returnable on 28.11.2022.

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

Vijay

Digitally Signed By:VIJAY KUMAR Personal Assistant to Hon'ble JUDGE Signing Date:21.10.2022 11:18