It cannot be considered to be a satisfactory reason for not giving effect to the said Government Resolution particularly when there is no mention of a stay being granted to the Government Resolution.

Ravikiran Shukre | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 25th February 2020

Case: Uttam R. Patil v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Writ Petition no. 4959 of 2017)

Facts of the case:

1. The petitioner has been working in the post of lecturer in Marathi N.K. Varadkar Art and R.V. Belose Commerce College, Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri. Since 1^st July, 1992. The Petitioner had been selected for the post of lecturer in Marathi in the said college after interview by the duly constituted Selection Committee against the open post. It is stated in the Petition that during the said year 1992 the Selection Committee although formed and interviews fixed, the subject expert did not attend the interview. Thus, the Selection Committee procedure was completed during the next year.
2. However, the selection relates back to the initial appointment i.e. on 1st July, 1992. The Petitioner after working in the post of lecturer for about three academic years, the management of the college terminated his services on 20th April, 1995. The Petitioner filed Appeal No.24 of 1995 before the University and College Tribunal, Mumbai challenging the said termination. The University and College Tribunal, Mumbai allowed the Appeal by an order dated 20th June, 1996 thereby setting aside termination and directed the management to continue the Petitioner’s services and pay him the wages due to him.
3. The Petition refers to a letter dated 26th March, 2008 sent by the University of Mumbai by which the Respondent No.4 was intimated that the Petitioner was exempted from NET / SET qualification. It is stated in the said letter that since no NET qualified / NET exempted candidate was available at the time of interview, exemption may be granted for U.G. teaching only in respect of the two named candidates, which included the Petitioner as a teacher in the subject of Marathi.
4. Government Resolution dated 27th June, 2013. By the said GR, it was clarified that the prior GR dated 19th September, 1991 which was made applicable on 23rd October 1992 cannot be applied with retrospective effect. The said GR dated 27th June, 2013 expressly states that the NET / SET requirement would not be applicable to the teachers who were appointed prior to 23rd October, 1992. The Petitioner having been appointed on 1st July, 1992 i.e. prior to 23rd October, 1992 is exempt from the NET / SET requirement.
5. Being aggrieved by the decision of the University of Mumbai, granting approval to the appointment of the Petitioner with effect from the date he completed his M.Phil on 10th August, 1994 and the Respondent not according approval of the Petitioner from the date of his appointment i.e. 1st July, 1992, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition.

Judgment:

1. The judgment of the University and College Tribunal which had attained finality clearly held that there was no dispute in so far as the Petitioner being appointed by letter dated 27^th August, 1992 against open category after giving advertisement in the newspaper. His appointment was effective from 1st July, 1992. It was also noticed that the University whilst according approval had not mentioned that the appointment is either on ad hoc or on temporary basis because of the non-passing of the NET / SET examination. It was an open category advertisement and it was held that the word used ‘temporary’ or ‘ad hoc’ appeared to be a device to enable the management to throw out an employee as has been done in present case. It was thus held that, the justification given by management for terminating the services of the Petitioner was not sound and was accordingly set aside.
2. Hon’ble High Court has upheld the judgment given by the University and College Tribunal and held that, this judgment and the findings on facts therein are binding upon the University of Mumbai and the management staff of the college. The petitioner therefore entitled to be accorded regular approval with effect from 1^st July, 1992, which would be date of his appointment as a full time lecturer in Marathi in the said college.
3. Hon’ble High Court also held that, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of GR dated 27^th june, 2013, and his appointment being prior to 23^rd October, 1992, would be accorded as a regular approval from his appointment date.

Hon’ble High Court has held that, (i) Respondent no. 3 shall accord regular approval w.e.f. 1st July, 1992 for the appointment of the Petitioner as full time lecturer in Marathi in the College. (ii) Respondent no. 2 shall withdraw or cancel the approval letter dated 15th February, 2012 granting probation approval to the appointment of the Petitioner w.e.f. from the date the Petitioner cleared the M.Phil i.e. on 10th August, 1994. (iii) Respondent No.2 shall issue a fresh letter according regular approval to the appointment of the Petitioner w.e.f. 1st July, 1992.