PRESIDENT SECRETARY Vs. EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are President and Principal of Maharaja Madakarinayaka First Grade College. Chitradurga. They have filed these Writ Petitions seeking to quash the common Order at Annexure-M passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeals in M. A. Nos. 12 and 13/94 filed by respondents 3 and 3 respectively, setting aside the orders of termination dated 1. 4. 1993 and directing payment of salary from the date of their joining into service up to 8. 10. 1992 by the petitioners herein and thereafter; by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Bangalore and the Regional Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Mysore, who were respondents 3 and 4 in the appeals. The appeals came to be filed by respondents 2 and 3 herein against the order dated 1. 4. 1993 intimating that they have been relieved from the post of Lecturers.

(2.) MR. M. Raghavendrachar, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that there was no approval of appointment of respondents 2 and 3. Even Smt. Shobha Patil, learned Govt. Pleader also made the same submission. But the same is wholly untenable as petitioners themselves have produced Annexure-N dated 8. 10. 1992 by which the appointment of respondents 2 and 3 have been approved. The approval was granted relaxing the economy Order. This document belies the submission made in this regard. The Educational Appellate Tribunal (EAT) has considered this aspect in paragraph 19 of its judgment and has rightly held that there was no force in the contention that there was no approval of the appointments. Thus, the contention does not hold water and the same is wholly untenable.

(3.) THE next contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the EAT has wrongly applied Rule 7 of the Govt. Order of November 1981. According to him, the petitioners institution had closed the Science combination for want of requisite student strength and hence question of considering transfer of these two lecturers does not arise. At page 33 of the judgment the EAT has considered this aspect. It is held that RW-1 has admitted about the management had addressed a letter to the Director of Collegiate Education that four Lecturers were excess as there was no work-load and sought for their transfer to some other college. It was also found that no such letter was addressed in respect of the present two lecturers. Admittedly, the petitioners institution is an aided institution. No communication is received from the Government to put an end to the services of the respondents 2 and 3. Rule 7 of the Government Order of 1981 prescribes transfer of such posts to some other college. No such effort is made in the case of respondents 2 and 3. The EAT has rightly applied Rule 7 of the Govt. Order and hence the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners deserves rejection.