THORAT SADASHIV PRATAPRAO Vs. SHIKSHAN PRASARAK SANSTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has challenged an order passed by the College Tribunal, rejecting an Appeal under Section 42(B)(1) of the Pune University Act (wrongly mentioned in the order as "Shivaji University Act, 1974).

(2.) THE Tribunal held that the term "teacher" in the Act meant only a full-time teacher and that the statute, therefore, did not apply in the present case. It was further held that in any event, for a person to be appointed on probation, there must be a clear vacancy and the selection must be made in accordance with the provisions of law. Referring to the orders of appointment issued to the Petitioner from time to time, it was observed that there was no approval for the appointment of the Petitioner on probation; that the appointment was not on a clear vacancy and that the same was not in accordance with the provisions of law. It was also held that the appointment was made against a post reserved for a Backward Class candidate. The Appeal was, therefore, dismissed. 2A.For the purpose of this judgment, it is necessary to refer to the facts only briefly. The Petitioner was appointed initially by a letter dated 14th March, 1985, only for one academic year and on a clear understanding that no extension would be granted. However, by a letter dated 7th June, 1986, an extension was granted on the same terms. Even thereafter, the Petitioner continued to be appointed from time to time. Each time, however, the appointment was only for a limited period. The subsequent letters of appointment stated that his appointment was subject to the approval of the Pune University. The letters of appointment, however, clearly stated that the Petitioner was appointed purely on a temporary basis and that his services were liable to be terminated at any time, without notice and without assigning any reasons.

(3.) FOR the purpose of this Petition, it is sufficient to note that there is nothing on record to indicate that the post had been de-reserved. I will presume that the conditions requisite under the various Government Resolutions for de-reserving the post have arisen. The process for de-reservation of the post has, however, not commenced. In the circumstances, it is not possible to grant the Petitioner, the reliefs claimed by him in his Appeal. This is despite the fact that his services were, in fact, required by the institution and the fact that he appears to have served the institution very well for such a long time. It is not possible, however, for this Court, in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to grant the reliefs sought by the Petitioner.