MEENA Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties.

(2.) By the present petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 28.2.2011, passed by the Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal No.N-4/2006, by which the appeal was returned to the appellant for presentation to the proper forum, upon holding the appeal to be not maintainable under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, against the order of retirement from service of the petitioner, she being declared invalid by the Medical Board.

(3.) In support of the writ petition, Advocate Shri Sundaram for the petitioner vehemently argued that Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 provides for appeal for challenging even the 'otherwise termination', besides dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. According to him, the petitioner was finally served with an order dated 21.2.2007 that she was found to be permanently incapacitated for further service as declared by the Medical Board and therefore, was retired on medical ground w.e.f. 1.2.2006. Since the petitioner is not entitled to serve further the employer, the relationship between master and servant is snapped since the relationship has been brought to an end by the said order of retirement. It is nothing but otherwise termination and therefore, the Tribunal erred in law in holding otherwise. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order.