ANANT KASHINATH PATHAK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was an educationist with post graduation degree in education by Papers, Research and Ph. D. Degree from Secondary Training College, Mumbai. He taught education in various Government colleges for about 25 years and was recognised as a Guide by the University of Bombay for guiding students doing Research for Doctorate in Education. The Petitioner began his career in 1957. In 1965 on being duly selected by the P.S.C. he was appointed as Lecturer in Education under the Maharashtra Education Services Class II Cadre. He was confirmed in the said post in 1967 and in 1970 he came to be appointed as the founder Principal of Chembur Comprehensive College of Education. In 1977 he was transferred to the Government College of Education at Panvel as Lecturer and was brought back to the College at Chembur in 1978. He came to be compulsorily retired on 25th Nov., 1986 which order he had challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 6004 of 1986. The said petition was allowed and he was reinstated by setting aside the order of compulsory retirement by this Court. A second order of compulsory retirement was issued against the Petitioner on 31st March, 1989. He challenged the said order in Writ Petition No. 1009 of 1989. On 6th Aug., 1990 a statement was made before this Court on behalf of the State Government that the order of compulsory retirement which was challenged was withdrawn and the Petitioner would be reinstated with all consequential benefits. The petition, therefore, came to be disposed of on 6th Aug., 1990. The Petitioner had made several representations to the authorities for payment of salary and consequential benefits as well as promotion to the post of Principal of the College according to his seniority. Inspite of his representations he was denied the selection grade in the pay scale of Rs. 3,700.00 to Rs. 5,700.00.

(2.) He approached this Court in the 3rd round of litigation by Writ Petition No. 1125 of 1991 which came to be transferred to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and re-registered as Transfer Application No. 586 of 1991. The Tribunal had given an interim direction to promote the Petitioner as Principal of the Government College of Education at Panvel on 27th June, 1992 with a further direction that the Petitioner would stand superannuated on the due date namely 30th June, 1992. When the transfer application came up for final hearing before the M.A.T. only two prayers of the Petitioner were required to be considered viz. grant of selection grade with accordance with Government resolution dated 27th Feb., 1989 effective from 1st Jan., 1986 and the payment of salary for the period from 1st July, 1990 to 20th Aug., 1990. By its judgment dated 19th Sept., 1997 the Tribunal was pleased to reject the transfer application. So far as the issue of payment of salary was concerned, the Tribunal observed that there was nothing to show whether the salary was actually paid to the Petitioner or not and if the same was not paid, it directed that it should be paid within 3 months from the date of the order, after making adjustments for any payments made for the period from 1st July, 1990 to 20th July, 1990. The prayer for selection grade was rejected. This order passed by the M.A.T. has been assailed before us.

(3.) The Government Resolution issued by the State Government on 27th Feb., 1989 has inter alia, set out the criteria as well as the procedure for awarding selection grade for the post of Lecturer and clauses 13 and 14 of the said Resolution have been rightly considered by the Tribunal. Clause 13 of the Resolution sets out the condition precedent for being considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade) and clause 14 sets out that the said promotion shall be through a process of selection by a Selection Committee to be set up under the Statutes of the University concerned in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the University Grants Commission. The Respondent State Authorities had submitted before the Tribunal in their return that the Petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade) was considered by the newly constituted Selection Committee pursuant to the decision of the Government dated 18th Aug., 1990 specifically for the purpose of considering the suitability of Lecturers in Government Colleges Institutes of Science, etc. The case of the Petitioner was considered by the said committee which did not find him fit for being promoted to the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade). The Tribunal, therefore, held that it was beyond its powers to sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Selection Committee, regarding the suitability of the Petitioner for being promoted and the judgment of the academic body could not be substituted by the Tribunal. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal.