GEETA BHASKAR PENDSE Vs. PRINCIPAL AYURVED COLLEGE SION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was a lecturer in Sanskrit in Ayurved College, Sion, Bombay, impugns the legality of the Order dated 9th December, 1986, made by the College Tribunal, Bombay, in Appeal No. 28 of 1986, confirming the termination of her services by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who are, respectively, the Principal and the Management of the College. The respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are respectively the University of Bombay, the Director of Ayurved, Maharashtra State, and the State of Maharashtra. The respondent No. 6 is a lecturer in Sanskrit appointed in the place of the petitioner.

(2.) THE admitted facts may be, briefly, set out : pursuant to the advertisement dated 13th October, 1983, and after interviewing the petitioner, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 appointed her as lecturer in Sanskrit. She worked from 19-3-1984 to 30-4-1984, as her appointment was specifically for this duration. A second advertisement was published on 12-11-1983 for the year 1984-85 inviting applications for the post of lecturer in Sanskrit. In 1984-85, the petitioner was once again interviewed selected and appointed for this post where she worked from 21-8-1984 to 19-4-1985. Pursuant to a third advertisement dated 28th April, 1984, the petitioner was once again appointed from 10-7-1985 to 30-4-1986. During all these three years, the petitioner worked in the college of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. She did not have in her favour any order of appointment for the duration of the summer vacations (a) from 1-5-1984 to 20-8-1984, and (b) 20-4-1985 to 9-7-85. The vacancy continued to exist even after 1-5-986. However, instead of continuing the petitioner, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 appointed the respondent No. 6 as lecturer in Sanskrit in the post occupied by the petitioner. One more fact needs to be stated. The initial appointment of the petitioner was in a clear permanent vacancy of lecturer in Sanskrit. But the vacancy was reserved for the candidates from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. No candidates applied for the post in response to any of the three advertisements. That is why the petitioner was appointed during the second and third years also. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are in this judgment referred to "backward class". The petitioner and respondent No. 6 belong to the "non-backward" classes.

(3.) A significant fact established before the Tribunal is that the petitioner was held entitled to the salary as Lecturer in Sanskrit for the Summer Vacations of the academic year 1984-85 and 1985-86. The Summer vacations of the academic year 1984-85 means the months of May and June 1985. Similarly, the summer vacation for the year 1985-86 means the months of May and June 1986. The petitioner by virtue of the finding of the Tribunal received the salary for the months of May and June 1985. The finding of the Tribunal has not been challenged before us by any respondents. Therefore, it cannot be said that in May and June 1985 she was not employed as lecturer in Sanskrit.