SHIVAJI UNIVERSITY Vs. ANEKANT EDUCATION SOCIETYS JAYSINGPUR COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The petitioner challenges the orders dated 3-1-1992, 23-9-1992 and 29-7-1993 passed by the College Tribunal, Pune. By order dated 3-1-1992 the College Tribunal had allowed the Appeal filed by the respondent No.3 herein against the respondent No.1. By order dated 23-9-1992 the College Tribunal had sought to clarify that the order of 3-1-1992 was binding on the parties to the Appeal and the appellant therein who was joined as the respondent No.2 to the said Appeal should regularise the appointment of the respondent No.3 herein. By the order dated 29-7-1993 the College Tribunal had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for review of the order dated 23-9-1992.

(2.) The respondent No.3 herein was a lecturer in History in Jaysingpur College of the respondent No.1, appointed during the academic year 1987-88 on clock hourly basis. The said appointment was approved by the petitioner under the letter dated 31-10-1987. For the academic year 1988-89 a full-time post of lecturer in History was approved which was required to be filled in by appointing a reserved category candidate. Since no suitable candidate from the backward category in the concerned subject was available, the 3rd respondent came to be appointed in the said post for the academic year 1988-89. Similarly for the academic year 1989-90 as no candidate from the backward class category was available, the respondent No.3 came to be appointed in the same post, which was also approved by the University for the academic year 1989-90. Even for the academic year 1990-91, the respondent No.3 continued to occupy the said post. Meanwhile, the management proposed to de-reserve the said post and applied for approval of the appointment of the respondent No.3 in the said post. The said proposal was turned down by the University and the management was directed to issue fresh advertisement and to call for fresh applications. The management complied with the said direction, however, no Scheduled Caste category candidate could be selected as no such candidate was found suitable for the post. However, the services of the 3rd respondent came to be terminated by the respondent No.1 by the order dated 8-9-1991 on account of absence of approval for his appointment by the University. The said order of 8-9-1991 was sought to be challenged by the respondent No.3 by filing appeal against the respondent No.1 alone before the College Tribunal and by order dated 3-1-1992, in the said Appeal, the same was allowed by giving the benefit of the Government Circular dated 30-9-1989. Based on the said Judgment, the respondent No.1 submitted proposal for approval of appointment of the respondent No.3 which came to be rejected by the University. Thereupon, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed Appeal against the respondent No.3 and the petitioner herein which came to be allowed by the order dated 23-9-1992. It was held that the order dated 3-1-1992 in Appeal No.40 of 1991 is binding upon the parties and therefore petitioner was directed to regularise the appointment of the respondent No.3. An attempt on the part of the petitioner to get the said order reviewed did not yield favourable result. Hence the present petition.

(3.) Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and perusal of the records, the following questions arise for consideration: