SAVITA PRADIP DATAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order of the Presiding officer, University Tribunal dated 31.1.1996 to a limited extent. By this order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and set aside the order of termination of service dated 30.4.1995. The Tribunal directed that the petitioner would be deemed to have continued in the post she was appointed in after 30.4.1995. However, the claim for back wages was denied by the Tribunal while directing that the petitioner be paid salary at the rate she was being paid in April, 1995.

(2.) The petitioner responded to an advertisement issued by respondent No.3 inviting applications for the post of Senior College Teacher in various streams including Zoology with specialization in Physiology. Pursuant to an interview, the petitioner was appointed on 7.12.1988 after being duly selected for one academic year. She was appointed against a post reserved for a candidate from the Scheduled Tribes. A fresh advertisement was issued by respondent No.3 for the next academic year 1989-90. The petitioner continued after being selected pursuant to an interview held. Similarly, an advertisement was issued in May, 1990 and the petitioner was appointed in a post meant for the candidate from the reserved category. In November, 1991, an advertisement was issued indicating that the post which was occupied by the petitioner was available for the open category. The petitioner applied for the said post and was interviewed. She was then appointed in a leave vacancy. The petitioner continued in this post till October, 1994 when the post, in which she was working against the leave vacancy, was declared as a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes category. An advertisement inviting applications for the post was issued indicating that the post was reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner was then appointed to the post on 3.1.1995 for the academic year 1994-95. The petitioner was informed that her services would automatically be terminated at the end of an academic year. An appeal was filed by the petitioner before the College Tribunal. Since it had been filed after some delay, an application for condoning the delay was also filed. The Tribunal condoned the delay and the appeal was heard on merits. The Tribunal held that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service from May, 1995 and directed that she be paid salary at the same rate that she was drawing on 30.4.1995. The Tribunal thus granted reinstatement with continuous service to the petitioner, however, without back wages.

(3.) The petitioner through this petition contends that the Government Resolution dated 29.9.1986 entitled her to continue in the post which she was appointed in the year 1988 once it was de-reserved after being advertised on three consecutive occasions. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the case of Ashok Chandrashekar Rao v/s University of Mumbai & ors., reported in 2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 788, the Division Bench of this Court has considered this Government Resolution and has concluded that when a candidate is not available from the reserved category and a candidate of the general category holds the post continuously, the candidate is entitled to be regularised in that post without it having to be re-advertised on de-reservation. The learned counsel submits that, in view of this judgment, the petitioner would be entitled to back wages from the time she was terminated from the post and would also be entitled to be confirmed and regularised in the post with effect from 1988 i.e. from the date she was first appointed. The learned counsel then draws our attention to the fact that after the petitioner was reinstated her pay has not been properly fixed by respondent No.3. He submits that though the petitioner was drawing Rs.2,575/- from 6.10.1994 upto 30.10.1994, she has been paid Rs.2,275/- on reinstatement.