RAJENDRA LAXMAN SAKHARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

(2.) . The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the Judgment and Order dated 26/8/2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Pune. The controversy in the proceedings is as regards the termination of the services of the Petitioner herein on 31/12/1996.

(3.) . The Respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed their reply in the said Appeal. It was their case that though the Petitioner was shown appointed in the post meant for open category, it was specifically mentioned in the appointment letter that the appointment of the Petitioner would be subject to approval of the Government. It is further the case of the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 that the approval which was granted to the Petitioner's appointment was as and by way of special case as the said vacancy was meant for the reserved category and in view of the backlog of reservation, approval was granted only for the period of one year on the condition that the post will be filled in by appointing a candidate from the reserved category in the next year. It is the case of the said Respondents that the service of the Petitioner came to be terminated vide letter dated 12/7/1994 pursuant to which the Petitioner had submitted a fresh application for the post of clerk for the academic year 199495. It is the case of the said Respondents that after termination of the service of the Petitioner, a fresh advertisement was issued pursuant to which one Dnyaneshwar Narayan Javir belonging to the scheduled tribe category was selected and appointed. The said Javir has been appointed in the post wherein the Petitioner was appointed i.e. in the MCVC Section, and the said Javir is in service. It is the case of the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 that the application of the Petitioner which he had made after his termination was considered on humanitarian grounds and the Petitioner was appointed to the post of clerk with effect from 1/8/1994 on a fixed salary of Rs.1000/ per month. After the said appointment, the work in the nongrant divisions of B.A. Part I, II and III was entrusted to the Petitioner. It is the case of the said Respondents that in the academic year 199697, the Shivaji University did not grant recognition to the additional divisions, and since there was reduction in the work load, the service of the Petitioner had to be terminated on 31/12/1996. The sum and substance of the case of the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 is that the Petitioner was never continued in the the post sanctioned for the MCVC section after the year 1994, and therefore, he could not be said to have acquired any permanency, and that in so far as his subsequent appointment is concerned, the same had to be terminated on account of the reduction in work load. The case of the Petitioner that he was transferred by order dated 1871994 has been dealt with and the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 averred that the Petitioner was never transferred from MCVC to senior college and that the order dated 18/7/1994 which has produced by the Petitioner is a fabricated and forged document. In so far as the case of transfer is concerned, the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have also averred that an employee cannot be transferred from an aided to a nonaided section.