M G SHIRNATTI Vs. PURNIMA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed by the principal of Lala lajpatrai College of Commerce and Economics inter alia challenging the order passed by the College Tribunal dated 26-6-2002 under which the respondent No. 1 has been reinstated in service and her termination has been held to be invalid. Few facts arising in the present case are briefly enumerated as under:

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 wa. s appointed as a lecturer in the petitioner No. 1 college on 26-6-1996 in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000. According to the appointment letter issued, the said appointment was for temporary period of one year because the appointment was in a reserved category and no reserved candidate being available the said appointment was effected. It is an admitted position that the said appointment though for a period of one year, was continued from year to year basis till the date of termination i. e. 11-4-2001. Thus, the respondent No. 1 was in service as a lecturer right upto 11-4-2001 on a year to year basis.

(3.) ON 11-4-2001, the respondent No. 1 was terminated on the ground of her appointment being temporary for the academic year 2000-2001 and her services are no more required. It is this order of termination which is the subject-matter of challenge before the College Tribunal in Appeal No. 64 of 2001 preferred by respondent No. 1. By the said appeal which was filed sometime in the month of July 2001, the respondent No. 1 had sought that the order of termination be quashed and set aside and the services of respondent No. 1 be continued and the University should grant necessary approval to her appointment till NET/set qualification was acquired by respondent No. 1. It was also prayed that the respondent No. 1 should be reinstated with full back wages. The petitioner has filed its written statement and has resisted the said appeal. It was the case of the petitioner before the College Tribunal that the appointment of the respondent No. 1 was temporary against the reserved category and it was also contended that the respondent No. 1 not having acquired the necessary qualification as prescribed by U. G. C. pertaining to NET/set examination, the respondent no. 1 was not eligible for appointment to the post of lecturer and, therefore, she could not be reinstatement to the said job. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, the College Tribunal by its order and judgment dated 26-6-2002 directed that the respondent No. 1 should be reinstated in the post held by respondent No. 1 from the date of termination of her services and the petitioner was also directed to pay her emoluments including back wages, if any. The College Tribunal by the said order has also directed the respondent No. 3 i. e. the University of Bombay to grant approval to the appointment of the respondent No. 1 from 9-6-2000 in accordance with the prevailing Rules. By the said order the Tribunal further directed that the respondent No. 4 who is the Government should reimburse the College the salary payable by the College to the respondent No. 1 in terms of the order passed by the College Tribunal.