PURUSHOTTAM PUNDLIKRAO SONONE Vs. PRISIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Parsodkar, learned counsel for respondent no.2, Shri Dhole, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Smt. Shinde, learned counsel for respondent no.5.

(2.) THE writ petition is directed against the order dated 19/9/1990 passed by the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent no.4 (otherwise termination) was partly allowed. Shri Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent published an advertisement in the local newspaper 'Tarun Bharat' dated 19/6/89, advertising the post of Lecturer in Political Science in the open category in the college run by the respondent no.2 management. The petitioner in pursuance to the advertisement, applied for the post of Lecturer in Political Science. The petitioner appeared before the duly constituted selection committee. The selection committee in its meeting dated 30/4/90 conducted interviews and selected the petitioner for being appointed as Lecturer in Political Science in a clear vacancy. It is further contended that the Chairman of the respondent society issued an order of appointment dated 3/5/90 and the petitioner joined his duties as a Lecturer on 3/5/90. The Deputy Registrar of Nagpur University , vide letter dated 14/9/90 approved the appointment of the petitioner for the academic session 1989 90 and onwards.

(3.) SHRI Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the propriety and validity of the impugned order primarily on two counts, (1) the impugned order does not amount to punishment since the petitioner was a temporary employee and remained absent from duty without intimation to the college or the management and therefore, the order of termination issued by the management cannot be said to be either punishment nor carry any stigma, and therefore, no enquiry before terminating the services of the petitioner was necessary. In order to substantiate the contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1999 (2) Bom LC 391 (SC) (Gangadhar Zila Dugdh Utpadak and Sahkari Sangh Ltd. and another v. Priyanka Joshi and another). The another count on which the petitioner has challenged the impugned order is in respect of manner in which the delay in filing appeal was condoned by the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal.