SANGITA ARVINDRAO DESHMUKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Kilor, Advocate, for the petitioner, Shri Adgokar, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Shri Loney, Advocate, for Respondent No. 4, Shri Mahalle, Advocate, for Respondent No. 5. None present for Respondent No. 6 (Formal Party)

(2.) By this petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is taking exception to the order passed by the Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Nagpur, in Appeal No. A-3/1996, by which the appeal of the appellant i.e. present petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner, appellant therein, had asked for continuation in the post on which she was appointed, which was reserved for certain categories, by setting aside the termination. It is necessary to note certain observations at this stage recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Nagpur, which read thus

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the date of appointment of the petitioner was 28.07.1991. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Director of Physical Education as per qualification prescribed by Respondent No. 4 -Amravati University. The appointment was initially for one year as she was not from the category of Scheduled Tribe, for which the said post was reserved. Later on also, after the completion of that academic year, as the suitable candidate from the S.C. category was not available, she was continued in that post. Thus, she was continued for 5 years. Later on also, as the suitable candidate from the said category was not available, her appointment on the said post was continued. Petitioners case is that, in view of the G.R. dated 23.5.1990, after completion of 5 years in the said post and when the suitable candidate from the reserved category was not available, the said post should have been treated as de-reserved and she should have been continued therein. Claiming this, she had moved the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur. However, the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal did not consider this aspect and relying on the G.R. dated 5th December, 1994, has wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order does not withstand to the legal scrutiny and it is liable to be set aside. He has relied on unrported Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3305 of 2001 (Smt. Sharda Sharad Gawande v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.), wherein in para 7, it has been observed thus-