PUNE VIDYARTHI GRIHA Vs. SHASHIKALA B YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a society and Public Trust, which administers the Minimum Competency Vocational Course (MCVC) wherein classes of standard XI and XII are conducted and thus the college satisfies the definition of junior college. The conditions of service of its employees are regulated by MEPS Act and the Rules made thereunder. The petitioner issued an advertisement before commencement of academic session 1991-92 and invited applications for various posts including the post of lecturer/Assistant teacher to teach junior college classes. The advertisement did mention that preference will be given to the candidates belonging to backward classes. However no specific reservation was provided for any post in the advertisement. The respondent being desirous of getting an appointment as lecturer in English for which she was very much qualified, applied for the said post and came to be selected. On selection the petitioner issued an appointment order in favour of the respondent, appointing the respondent temporarily only for one academic session i.e. for the period from 17-7-1991 to 30-4-1992. This appointment of the respondent was accorded approval by Education Officer and the approval order categorically mentions that the appointment of the respondent is approved only for one academic session. The approval further shows in para 1 that clear understanding should be given to the candidates that their appointments are purely temporary and that too against the reserved vacancies. The order of approval is dated 30-9-1991.

(2.) ONE more document is crucial to decide the issue which arise for adjudication in this petition and the said document is No Objection Certificate issued by the Social Welfare Officer, Pune dated 20-3-1992. The No Objection letter permits the petitioner to fill in the post by appointing the respondent only for one academic session as candidates from backward class category was not available despite the advertisement being published.

(3.) IT is the case of the respondent as is revealed from the appeal filed before the tribunal that the post wherein the respondent was working was advertised in the next academic session viz. 1992-93 and the respondent along with some other candidates had applied for the said post. In the process of selection, the respondent was rejected and some other candidate was selected. Hence aggrieved by non selection of the respondent for appointment to the post of junior lecturer for the subject of English, the respondent filed an appeal before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal. A written statement -cum-reply was filed by the petitioners before the tribunal raising a preliminary objection about maintainability of the appeal by contending that only in limited contingencies the appeal is maintainable under 9 of the Act before the tribunal and the said contingency relates to dismissal, removal, termination, reduction in rank or supersession of claims. The respondent had made a grievance on account of non selection in the process of selection, which was conducted by the petitioner. Thus the appeal itself was not maintainable as the same was falling outside the purview of section 9. Thereafter by amending the appeal action of termination of service was assailed before the tribunal.