MULA EDUCATION SOCIETY SONAI Vs. HAIBHAU JAGANNATH KARDILE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under Clause 15 of the letters Patent, appellants (henceforth referred to as the "management" for the sake of brevity) desires to challenge order dated 12-7-2000 passed by learned single Judge of this High Court in Writ Petition No. 1040/2000. The learned single Judge was pleased to reject the writ petition filed by the management at the threshold. The writ petition was filed by the management thereby challenging the order passed by Pune/shivaji University and College Tribunal, in Appeal no. 21/1998 (P). By the said order, the learned Member of the Tribunal held that termination of respondent No. 1 (henceforth referred to as the "teacher" for the sake of brevity) with effect from 17-1-1998 was otherwise i. e. otherwise than due process of law or procedure as prescribed by university statutes. Consequently, the learned Member ordered the management to reinstate the teacher and pay the arrears of salary from 17-1-1998 till the date of reinstatement. This judgment and order passed by the learned Member of the University Tribunal is upheld by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order.

(2.) Following facts are undisputed. The respondent No. 1 - teacher was initially selected by a duly constituted selection committee in the month of july/august, 1994. However, at that time, he was recommended for a post, which was reserved for scheduled caste. Consequently, he was issued appointment order only for one academic year 1994-95. His termination at the end of that academic year was not challenged by the teacher. He was again selected by duly constituted selection committee in the month of May, 1995. This time, it was advertisement by the management for 2 posts for open category candidates for teaching "physics". The teacher, on selection, is said to have been issued an appointment order dated 28-6-1995. It is the contention of teacher that he was never issued any appointment orders, but he resumed on the basis of selection and oral directions. It appears that teacher continued to serve till 17-1-1998 whereafter he was not allowed to sign the Muster roll and, thus, was terminated otherwise than due process.

(3.) Heard respective counsel for respective parties,