VITHAL RAMCHANDRA BIRADAR Vs. P G PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the College tribunal for Nagpur, Amravati and Marathwada Universities on 29-7-1986 in Appeal No. M-6/1986. The respondent No. 3 herein was appointed as a Library Assistant on 28-6-1971 and his claim for promotion was not considered by the respondent No. 2 management, when according to the respondent No. 3 he was entitled for the said promotion in the year 1979. It is his contention that other persons have been promoted to the post of Senior Clerk when the respondent No. 3 was validly entitled for the said promotion. Rest of the grievances made in the appeal were not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal. However, the dispute in between the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2 management was in respect of the jurisdiction of the tribunal, namely, the respondent No. 2 management was contending that the grievance in respect of the supersession or denial of promotion cannot be considered by the tribunal while exercising the powers under section 42-B of the Marathwada University Act, 1974 (section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 ). The question, therefore, was considered by the tribunal and the tribunal held that as per the decision of the Supreme Court it is within the jurisdiction of the tribunal to enquire whether the norms of promotions are followed and the promotion of individual was justified and to that extent this part of reference is not invalid. It is further observed that it is within the jurisdiction of the tribunal to demolish a bad order or direct reconsideration of the order in correct principles and thus, the tribunal ultimately came to the conclusion that it had a jurisdiction and decided the matter.

(2.) MR. N. H. Patil, who appears for the petitioners has raised two grounds; first as a result of the impugned order the promotions of the petitioners have been set aside by the tribunal and the tribunal has directed the management to consider the case of superseded employees for promotions except the petitioners. Thus, as a result of this order, the right of the petitioners to promotion has been completely taken away by the tribunal and they are also removed from the consideration zone and such order has been passed by the tribunal without the petitioners being party to the proceeding and without offering any opportunity of hearing. Thus, the principles of audi alteram partem have been completely flouted is in short the submission.

(3.) THE second point which is raised by the learned Counsel is that the tribunal has a jurisdiction in the matter of termination of a service and a reduction in rank. However, in the present matter, it is submitted that supersession is not a reduction in rank and, therefore, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and decide a question of seniority and promotion, as has been done by the tribunal.