SHRI JAIN SWETAMBAR TERAPANTHI MANAV HITKARI SANGH Vs. THE RAJASTHAN NON-GOVERNMENT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE proceedings in hand witness impugnment of the judgments and orders dated 26.3.2003 passed by the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in appeals no. 105/2002 and 289/1998 thereby interfering with the orders dated 2/6.4.2002 and 15.7.1998 respectively terminating the services of the respondent no. 2 herein with the appellant -College. Thereby in essence the learned Tribunal restored the respondent no. 2 in service with the consequential benefits.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Tatiya for the appellants, Mr. Sanjay Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, Mr. A.K. Rajvanshy, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 -MDS University and Mr. Digvijay Singh, learned Additional Government Counsel.

(3.) THE appellant -College to secure a regular appointment to the post of Lecturer (JV and JV) issued an advertisement and in the interview that followed on 28.7.1997, three candidates including the respondent no. 2 did appear. However, as none of the candidates was found to be possessing the requisite qualification for the post as they had not passed the eligibility test for Lecturer conducted by the UGC/CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC or had not submitted their Ph.D. thesis or completed their M.Phil degree by the 31st December, 1993, the Selection Committee decided to re -advertise the post. In these circumstances, according to the appellants, the respondent no. 2 was allowed to continue on the post on ad hoc basis as before. In their second endeavour through advertisement dated 2.7.1998, only candidate, namely, Anekant Kumar Jain was found to be possessed of the requisite qualification and therefore, he was engaged pending final selection. As a consequence, the services of the respondent no. 2 having been terminated by the order dated 15.7.1998, he filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal under section 19(2) of the Act which was registered as appeal no. 289/98. By the order dated 31.7.1998, the learned Tribunal directed the appellants not to appoint any person on the post involved. Eventually, however, as the candidate, who had been engaged pending final selection did abandon the post, the appellants restored the earlier arrangement whereunder the respondent no. 2 started rendering his services again in the post. The appellants have averred that this arrangement had to be made to ensure that the students did not suffer.