L RODRIGUES Vs. SHASHI S MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner - the Principal of Sophia College for Women, Bombay, has challenged the judgment and order dated 19. 2. 1988 of the College Tribunal of Bombay, setting aside the order of the College terminating the services of the Respondent No. 1 - a lecturer of the College with a direction to reinstate her with continuity of service and other benefits.

(2.) THE facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under : by a letter dated 15. 6. 1983, the Respondent No. 1 was appointed in the Sophia College as lecturer in Hindi. In the letter of appointment, it was stated that she will be on probation for a period of one year at the first instance and if her work was found satisfactory, the probationary period would be extended for a further period of one year. It was also made clear that if the probationary period was not extended before the expiry of the first year of probation the appointment would stand automatically terminated on the expiry of the first year of probation i. e. , with effect from 21. 4. 1984. There was a further stipulation in the said letter that on successful completion of two years of probation, the appointment would be confirmed. The appointment was, however, subject to the approval of the University of Bombay. It seems that the work of Respondent No. 1 was found satisfactory by the Petitioner College and in that view of the matter, by letter dated 20. 4. 1984, she was intimated by the Principal of college that her probationary period had been extended by a further period of one year up to the end of the academic term 1984-85 subject to the same terms and conditions as contained in her original letter of appointment. Before the expiry of the next academic year, by a letter dated 20. 4. 1985, the respondent No. 1 was informed by the Principal of College that the College was pleased to confirm her in her post of 'full-time Lecturer' in the Department of Hindi, subject, however, to University approval, with effect from the current academic year 21. 6. 1985. There is no dispute about the fact that the appointment was permanent. That is evident from the above letter itself where it was so stated in clear terms. Thus, the services of the respondent No. 1 in the above College which commenced as a probationer from 15. 6. 1983, got confirmed with effect from 21. 6. 1985, on her satisfactory completion of two years period of probation and she thus became a permanent confirmed employee of the petitioner College. However, on 12. 3. 1986, the respondent No. 1 got a letter from the Principal of the College informing her that as the university had approved her appointment as a temporary appointment, her services would come to an end at the end of academic year 1984-85 and the post would be readvertised in accordance with the regulations concerning temporary appointments. The text of the above letter is set out below : march 12, 1986. Dear Mrs. Mishra, i write with reference to our letter No. Staf/5 of 20th April 1985, in which you were confirmed in your post subject to University approval of the same. I regret to inform you that we have now received the list of staff approvals/disapprovals for the academic year 1984-85 and your appointment has been approved only as a temporary appointment. Because of this, at the end of this year we will re-advertise the post in accordance with the regulations concerning temporary appointments. Yours Sincerely, sd/- (Dr. (Sr.) L. Rodrigues)Principal

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 was aggrieved by this action of the petitioner. According to her, she was never a temporary teacher. Right from the beginning, she had been appointed as a permanent teacher, though on probation for a period of 2 years. But that is not relevant as on satisfactory completion of the above probationary period she was confirmed to the said post by letter date 20. 4. 1985. She challenged the above action of the Principal of the College before the College tribunal by filing an appeal under Section 42-B (1) of the Bombay University Act, 1974. The college Tribunal of Bombay, after hearing the parties at length on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the rival submissions, arrived at a finding that the termination of her services (of Respondent No. 1) after confirmation was patently illegal and in violation of the relevant Circular of the University being Circular No. 238 of 1983, which had the force of law in that regard.