JANSHAKTI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA Vs. KARUNA BABURAO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether an appeal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to the Act for the sake of brevity) could be filed by an employee against an order of termination before the date on which the termination is to take effect, is the question that is required to be answered by this Division Bench.

(2.) Though a writ petition challenging the order of the University and College Tribunal in an appeal under Section 59 of the Act needs to be placed before the learned Single Judge for hearing in view of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, the occasion for placing this matter before the Division Bench is referable to the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 22.8.2000. After disagreeing with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in the judgment, reported in 1998 (1) Mh.L.J. page 707, the learned Single Judge hearing this petition on 22.8.2000 requested the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice, that the matter should be placed before the Division Bench for deciding whether an appeal under Section 59 of the Act could be filed against the order of termination, dismissal or removal though the termination is to take effect on a date, subsequent to the date of filing of the appeal.

(3.) The petitioner Management had by the order, dated 25.1.1999 terminated the services of the respondent w.e.f. 30.4.1999, that is, after the completion of the notice period. On the receipt of the said order, dated 25.1.1999, the respondent filed an appeal before the University and College Tribunal on 6.2.1999. The appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by the Tribunal, by the judgment, dated 7.5.1999. The said judgment is challenged by the petitioner ­ Management in this writ petition. When this matter came up for admission and hearing before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 22.8.2000, a submission was made on behalf of the petitioner ­ Management by placing reliance on a judgment of another learned Single Judge, reported in 1998 (1) Mh.L.J. 707 that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the respondent, as in view of the provisions of Section 59 (1) of the Act, an appeal could have been filed only by an employee, who is dismissed, terminated or removed. It was canvassed before the learned Single Judge on 22.8.2000 that the respondent's services were not terminated on the date of filing the appeal, i.e., on 6.2.1999, as by the order dated 25.1.1999, the termination was to take effect only on 30.4.1999. The learned Single Judge, however, on a reading of the provisions of Section 59 (2) of the Act, disagreed with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment, reported in 1998 (1) Mh.L.J. 707 as in the view of the learned Single Judge that was hearing this writ petition, if the respondent would have waited for his termination to take effect on 30.4.1999, he would have run the risk of filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation. In view of the divergence in the views of the two learned Single Judges, the learned Single Judge hearing this writ petition on 22.8.2000 requested the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice to place the matter before the Division Bench for appropriate orders. In pursuance of the said order, dated 22.8.2000, the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice had directed the placement of this writ petition before the Division Bench.