CHAIRMAN SECREARY Vs. PATEL TUSHAR MAGANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing hearing today.

(2.) By filing this petition, the petitioner-Management has challenged the order passed by the Tribunal at Annexure `F', in Application No.18 of 2002. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has granted interim mandatory order, by which the respondent-Lecturer is ordered to be continued in service initially upto 31.7.2002. The Court is informed that, by another order dated 5.12.2002, the said interim relief granted earlier is continued till the decision of the main Application. It is not in dispute that the main application is still pending. The respondent No.1 herein was appointed as a Lecturer in the college by an order dated 17.7.2000 on probation for a period of two years. Thereafter, by order dated 15.4.2002, his services were terminated, to be effective from 15th May, 2002. The said order is passed during the period when the respondent was on probation. The said order was challenged by the respondent No.1 by way of an application before the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal, being Application No.18 of 2002. The Tribunal initially granted ad interim mandatory order, by which the respondent was allowed to be continued as Lecturer and, subsequently, after hearing both the sides, the said order was confirmed. The said order is under challenge at the instance of the petitioner-Management.

(3.) Mr.Patel, who is appearing for the petitioner-Management, submitted that the Tribunal has committed grave error of law and of jurisdiction in passing the mandatory order, restoring respondent No.1 back in service. Respondent No.1 was on probation and since during the probationary period, his services were not satisfactory, ultimately, the termination order was passed. He submitted that the Management has also produced certain documentary evidence before the Tribunal, pointing out that his work was not satisfactory, and, according to him, therefore, respondent No.1, who was on probation, had no right to the post and, it is always open for the Management to terminate the services if the services of the probationer are not satisfactory. He submitted that, in any case, once termination order is passed by the Management, such type of interim order is not required to be passed, as it is mandatory in nature. He also submitted that in case the petitioners succeed before the Tribunal, it will not be possible for the petitioners to recover any salary for the intervening period, as, respondent No.1 may claim salary on the basis of quantum meruit for the interim period. He also submitted that if the respondent No.1 succeeds, ultimately, consequential order can always be passed by the Tribunal. He also further submitted that on the principle of balance of convenience, such interim relief could not have been passed.