SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL WANI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner Society which runs the Lokmanya Mahavidyalaya, Wani (for short the "college"), has challenged in this writ petition the order of the College Tribunal dated 16-11-1990 setting aside the order of the termination of service of the respondent No. 2 as a Principal of the College and granting him a declaration that he continues to be in service as Principal of the College and is entitled to back wages of the said post from the date of the order of termination of his service till the date he is taken back in service in the said post.

(2.) THE facts relevant to this Petition are that pursuant to the selection made by the Selection Committee constituted as per the rule sin the Amravati University for appointment of the Principal in the College run by the Petitioner Society, the respondent No. 2 who was at serial No. 1 in the panel of the Selection Committee in order of preference was appointed as the Principal of the College by an order dated 3-9-1988 issued by the President of the Society who was ex-officio Chairman of the Local Managing Committee of the college. The said order dated 3-9-1968 was signed by him as the President of the College. The report of the Selection Committee was sent by him to the Amravati University to seek the approval of the Vice-Chancellor for appointment of the respondent No. 2 as the Principal of the college of the Petitioner Society which approval was communicated to him by the Deputy Registrar of the University by his letter dated 7-10-1988.

(3.) PERUSAL of the order of appointment of the respondent No. 2 dated 3-9-1988 as the Principal of the College shows that his appointment was on probation for a period of 2 years. During the period of his probation, it appears that there was a Meeting of the Managing Committee of the Petitioner Society on 24-8-1989 at the residence of Shri N. S. Nagarwala, in which the subject discussed was about the dissatisfactory working of the respondent No. 2 as the Principal of the College in the light of the letter of the Vice-President of the Petitioner Society dated 21-3-1989 addressed to its President. The President of the Petitioner Society had made clear in the said meeting his own point of view in the matter. After some discussion, it was decided in the said meeting dated 24-8-1989 to call the Meeting of the Managing Committee on 13-9-1989 for detailed discussion and for hearing the explanation of the respondent No. 2.