USHA VITHAL GAVHANE Vs. H B PADATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIVAJI Mahavidyalaya, Barsi, Solapur is administered by respondent No.3. The said College is affiliated to Shivaji University, Kolhapur. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 had issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for being appointed as Lecturer in Zoology. It is the case of the present petitioner that in compliance with the requirement of the statute No.195 of the Shivaji University the statutorily constituted Selection Committee interviewed the candidates and as the petitioner was found to be suitable and eligible for being appointed, she came to be appointed in the said post of lecturer for zoology. Though the petitioner was selected for filling up full time post of lecturer in zoology, respondents 2 and 3 issued appointment order terming her appointment as temporary appointment for academic year 1990-91. The proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner was forwarded to the University and the University being convinced that the appointment was in a permanent post approved the appointment on probation for a period of 2 years. Subject to the petitioner passing net/set examination. The petitioner was continued in service till 20.4.1995 and was discontinued from service from the said date. Prior to the petitioner's termination from service a notice was served on the petitioner by respondents 2 and 3 setting out reason for termination and the same is to the effect that enough workload is not available in the subject of zoology as per the Government norms and on account of non availability of workload petitioner has been terminated from service. Aggrieved by the termination the petitioner filed an appeal before the University and College Tribunal, Pune.

(2.) THE main bone of contention before the Tribunal, on behalf of the rival parties was as to how workload for zoology subject is to be calculated. The Government had stipulated different norms for the purposes of conducting practicals in science subjects and the University on the other hand had stipulated different criteria for practicals. The University had prescribed a batch of about 16 students for practicals whereas the State Government had laid down that each batch shall comprise of 20 students for practicals. If the workload is to be counted as per the norms laid down by the Academic Council then more workload is available, whereas if the norms laid down by the State Government are to be adhered to, less workload is available. The dispute in regard to calculating the workload was not only restricted to the University in question but was common feature in almost all Universities in the State of Maharashtra. One such dispute landed before the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No.1518/83 and the Division Bench at Nagpur held that in academic matters the decision of the University will be binding. Thus, it is crystal clear that had the respondent calculated the workload as per the norms laid down by University, enough workload was available. Even the University and College Tribunal has recorded the finding that the termination of the petitioner on the ground that there was no enough workload available is unsustainable. Before this Court it is not in dispute that the workload has to be calculated as per the norms laid down by the University for the reason that in academic matters the decision of the University is to prevail. If that be the position, it is clear that the termination of the petitioner from service on the ground of in adequacy of workload in the subject of zoology was illegal and unsustainable in law.

(3.) THE College and its management admit that there is vacant post of lecturer in subject of zoology on account of retirement of one Mr. S.S. Ranade on 28.2.1999. With a view to ascertain the correct position I had called upon respondent No.6-University to file affidavit indicating availability of vacant post in the subject of zoology. An affidavit has been filed on 26.2.2007 stating that one post of lecturer is vacant on account of retirement of Mr.S.S.Ranade from February, 1999. In addition to said post, one more vacancy is likely to arise on 30.6.1007 due to retirement of one Mr.Patil. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 fairly states that as there is a vacancy in the post of lecturer in zoology the petitioner can be accommodated and the said Respondents have no objection if orders are passed in that regard. However he submits that no monitory liability be fastened on respondents 2 and 3. Learned counsel further contended that though the vacancy has arisen on account of retirement of Mr. Ranade in February, 1999, for a period of 8 years the said vacancy was not permitted to be filled in and hence no grants are released for one of the post of lecturer in zoology. This position is not disputed by learned Additional Government Pleader representing the State and the Joint Director, Higher Education. As there exists vacancy in the post of lecturer in the subject of zoology and as I have already held that the termination of the petitioner on the ground of insufficient workload was itself illegal, the petitioner needs to be reinstated in service.