NIMBA ZOPA PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

(2.) Mr. Nagargoje, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was appointed for the first time with the respondent No. 5/college in the year 1993 on clock hour basis. Thereafter again the petitioner was appointed in the year 1994 as part time and in June 1995 the petitioner was appointed as full time lecturer in defence subject. The learned counsel submits that, for the first time when the petitioner was appointed on clock hour basis, the petitioner had undergone selection process as contemplated. Even in the year 1994, the petitioner had undergone selection process. So also is the case in the year 1995. According to the learned counsel in the year 1995 an advertisement was issued for appointment of full time lecturers for various subjects. The defence subject was one of them. Many such lecturers were appointed as full time lecturers along with the petitioner in different subjects.

(3.) The proposal was submitted by the institution seeking approval to the appointments of various lecturers. All other lecturers were granted permanent approval from 1995-1996, however, the petitioner was granted permanent approval from the year 1996-1997. According to the learned counsel petitioner represented to the respondents for grant of permanent approval to his appointment, but of no avail. The petitioner also approached the grievance committee. The grievance committee considered grievance of the petitioner and came to be conclusion that, the petitioner is entitled to be granted approval as full time lecturer since the year 1995-1996. The university has not accepted the same only on the ground that in respect of work load of defence subject there is overwriting. The college was started in the year 1993-1994. Four clock hours were available for defence subject in that year. Thereafter in the year 1994-1995 work load of eight clock hours was available and in the year 1995- 1996 work load of twelve clock hours was available. The same was sufficient for appointment of a full time lecturer. The learned counsel submits that, even the management of the respondent/college had categorically represented that, twelve lectures were available in defence subject in the year 1995-1996. The document sent by principal are also placed on record. As such, the petitioner was required to be granted approval from the year 1995-1996.