UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI Vs. NEELA BANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by the present petition has impugned the judgment dated 6th September, 2002 passed by the Mumbai university College Tribunal in Appeal No. 75 of 2001 preferred by a member of the non-teaching staff under section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The Appeal was preferred to challenge the order dated 30th September, 2000 and 31st August, 2001 under which the respondent No. 1's services were sought to be brought to an end by the University.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that the Respondent No. 1 continued to be the employment of the University pursuant to various orders which came to be passed from time to time ordinarily for a period of 3 months from 1st October, 1997. On some occasions there were longer periods and on some occasion shorter period than 3 months. By the order of 30th September, 2000 the respondent No. 1 was informed that in pursuance of the resolution of the management Council at its meeting held on 29th September, 2000 her services have been discontinued with immediate effect i. e. from 30th September, 2000. 2a. The respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before the Industrial Court which passed an interim order on 4th October, 2000 which had the effect of allowing the respondent No. 1 to continue in service and report for duty. The petitioner University then raised an objection as to the jurisdiction of the industrial Court to entertain the complaint. That objection was upheld. However, though the ad-interim order was vacated on 21st August, 2001 a direction was issued to maintain status quo until the Respondent No. 1 received copy of the order passed by the Industrial Court. The copy was made available on 31st august, 2001. The University by their letter of 31st August, 2001 again discontinued the services of the respondent No. 1 on the ground that there was no stay from the Court of Competent jurisdiction. It is thereafter that the respondent no. 1 herein preferred an Appeal before the University and College Tribunal. It was the contention of the respondent No. 1 that her father was employed with the petitioners and he retired on 31st July, 1990. It was further contended that it was the practice of the petitioners to appoint son or daughter of the employees who were retiring and to that effect had issued various circulars. The respondent No. 1 contended that her work was satisfactory and no memo or orders were issued to her. As and when required the respondent No. 1 did O. T. and extra work to meet the exigencies. Despite all that the petitioner was not paying the salary as per the prescribed scale and other allowances. There are some other grievance as set out which need not for the time being, gone into. In fact she made various representations to be regularised. Instead of being regularised the respondent no. 1 was informed that her services will be discontinued. She challenged the order of termination as being mala fide, arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. It was also her case that similarly situated employees filed writ Petition No. 1844 of 1994 in which the petitioner herein had filed consent terms and absorbed the said four employees and regularised their services. She, therefore, prayed that the orders of termination be set aside and she be reinstated. The petitioner University filed their reply. It was contended therein that when the University required the employees on permanent basis they have to send a proposal to the State Government and unless the Government sanctions the post no permanent appointment can be made. There are restrictions imposed on the petitioners by section 8 of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994. In order to meet contingencies and with a view to complete the examination process and the allied work incidental thereto within the restricted period, the petitioner had to employ some employees on ad hoc basis. Such appointments are required to be made and the Management Council of the University under its authority fill in these posts on temporary basis. It is set out that the Standard Code is applicable to the non-teaching employees and the University is following the procedure of recruitment of the ad hoc staff as per the Standard Code and makes appointment of these ad hoc employees. It is then set out that the regular recruitment procedure is also there in the Standard Code Rule 1984 for Non-teaching staff of class III employees. The respondent No. 1, it was contended, was not appointed in terms of Rule 3 (III) (b) (1) as prescribed under Standard Code which are applicable for recruiting regular employees.

(3.) DURING' the pendency of the proceedings the respondent No. 1 applied to the College Tribunal to direct the petitioners herein to produce various documents including the details of sanctioned approved posts in respect of Class n and IV employees. The petitioner University filed their reply opposing the grant of said application. However; insofar as the number of posts is concerned they agreed to produce the details if the Court so directed, it appears that no order was passed on the application dated 20th July, 2002 made by the respondent no. 1 herein.