AMBIKA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA Vs. HONEBLE PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the judgment of the College Tribunal dated 2.11.2004 in Appeal No. N18/2003, whereby the College Tribunal has allowed appeal filed by respondent No. 2 employee and directed the petitioner/ management to reinstate him with continuity and full back wages. This Court has issued Rule in the matter on 7.12.2005 but granted stay of payment of back wages only.

(2.) The facts show that present respondent No. 2 approached College Tribunal with grievance that his services were orally terminated on 14th August, 2003. He pointed out that the petitioner college started in 1992 and it is affiliated to respondent No. 3 Nagpur University. In response to the advertisement he applied and was interviewed by competent Selection Committee and joined on 16.1.1996. His appointment was also approved on 18.2.1996. He pointed out that for some time he was shown as incharge Principal also after Shri H.R. Chauhan, earlier Principal expired in November, 2002. He contended that examination forms were again forwarded in December, 2002 but the same were signed by son of Secretary of the Institution, who did not possess requisite qualification of physical education. He also pointed out that payment of salary to him was discontinued in April, 2003. On 16th June, 2003, when he went to attend college, the attendance register was not given to him for putting signature and after declaration of result of B.P. Ed. he was not permitted to take part in the process of admission of the students. He complained to Nagpur University on 11.8.2003 and its copy was received by the petitioner on 13.8.2003. On 14.8.2003 son of Secretary of the petitioner prevented him from coming into college premises. Then he has pointed out some subsequent events. He then filed an appeal, as mentioned above, under section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The said appeal was opposed by the management on various grounds and they also contended that the

(3.) I have heard learned Senior Advocate Shri K.H. Deshpande with Advocate Shri Lakhe for the petitioner management, learned Advocate Shri N.R. Saboo for respondent No. 2 employee and learned Advocate Ms. Tajwar Khan for respondent No. 3 University.