JAYA Vs. WAINGANGA BAHUUDDESHIYA VIKAS SANSTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The respondent no. 1 and 2 had published an advertisement on 9.6.1999 calling applications for appointment on the post of Full Time Lecturer in the subject of Home Economics. Petitioner had applied for the post of Lecturer in Home Economics and was selected on the said post. The appointment order was issued to the petitioner on 24.9.1999. The appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary and it was mentioned in the appointment order that the services of the petitioner would be terminated at any time during the temporary services without any notice, in case the performance of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. The University granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer on 10.1.2000. The services of the petitioner were, however, terminated by order dated 20.2.2001. The termination order mentioned that the services of the petitioner during the academic session 19992000 and 20002001 were found to be unsatisfactory. The termination order was based on the resolution of the Managing Committee dated 16.2.2001. The petitioner challenged the order dated 20.2.2001 terminating her services before the Presiding Officer University & College Tribunal, Nagpur in an appeal under section 59 of the Maharashtra University Act 1994. The Presiding Officer, College Tribunal, Nagpur by its judgment dated 17.7.2001 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The said order dated 17.7.2001 is impugned in the instant petition.

(3.) Shri. Borkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, as the order dated 20.2.2001 terminating the services of the petitioner was stigmatic. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was necessary for the respondent no. 1 & 2 to hold a full fledged enquiry against the petitioner before terminating her services. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order of termination, dated 20.2.2001 referred to the resolution of the managing committee dated 16.2.2001 and the same was also enclosed along with termination order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the resolution dated 16.2.2001 referred to a report furnished by the Principal of the college and this report mentioned more than 10 allegations levelled against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner a combined reading of the report of the Principal of the Institution dated 8.2.2001, the resolution of the managing committee dated 16.2.2001 and the termination order dated 20.2.2001 clearly show that the order was punitive in nature and was stigmatic. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court [Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others, 1999 AIR(SC) 983] to substantiate his submission that though the material which amounts to stigma is not contained in the order of termination, the same can be contained in any document referred in the termination order or in its annexures. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the resolution was one of the annexures supplied to the petitioner along with termination order dated 20.2.2001 and the resolution made a reference to the report dated 8.2.2001 and a combined reading of these documents showed that the order was punitive in nature and it was necessary for the respondent no. 1 and 2 to hold an enquiry against the petitioner.