LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-392

RAMDEOBABA SMARAK SARVAJANIK SAMITI Vs. HONBLE PRESIDING OFFICER

Decided On January 29, 2008
Ramdeobaba Smarak Sarvajanik Samiti Appellant
V/S
Honble Presiding Officer Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of learned single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No.2211 of 1997. The appellant management raises question as to whether the first appointment of teacher in an institution can itself be of a permanent nature.

(2.) Respondent No.2 Dr.A.P. Rao was appointed as Principal of appellant s college after his selection by duly constituted selection Committee and approval by the university. He joined his duties on 26.09.1994. On 13.06.1995 he was informed that his work was not satisfactory. On 05.08.1995 the management decided to terminate services of respondent No.2 and by order dated 09.08.1995 services of respondent No.2 Dr. Rao were terminated after paying him a month s salary in lieu of notice. He challenged his termination before the University and College Tribunal. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 15.07.1997 held in favour of respondent No.2 and allowed the appeal. It held that the appointment of respondent No.2 was not on probation but in confirmed status as Principal of the college and therefore his services could not have been terminated as a probationer. The management challenged this order by filing writ petition which, as already observed, came to be dismissed by judgment of the learned single Judge dated 27th February, 1998 giving rise to the present appeal.

(3.) The only point urged in this appeal is, whether respondent No.2 could at all have been appointed as confirmed Principal and whether he could have forced the management to continue him in service. We would not go into the factual aspects of respondent No.2 s appointment. The appointment order dated 04.08.1994 is vague and therefore sought to be interpreted as an appointment on permanent basis till respondent No.2 attained age of sixty years. Having regard to the ambiguous nature of the order the nature of the initial appointment order needs to be interpreted. The next question is, whether the management could have made such an appointment in the face of binding provisions in the Statute and Ordinance of Nagpur University.