Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the termination of Ramesh Gajendra Jadhav's services as a lecturer in Geography at a college, which was executed by the Principal on 18th August 1999. Jadhav contested his termination, claiming he was unjustly dismissed despite being appointed as a regular lecturer. The Shivaji University & College Tribunal initially ruled in his favor, reinstating him with back wages. However, the High Court later overturned this decision, stating that the position was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, and Jadhav had no indefeasible right to the post. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld this ruling, emphasizing that the appointment was based on an erroneous advertisement that misrepresented the vacancy. Jadhav's appeal to the Supreme Court questioned whether the rectification of a mistake regarding reservation could justify his termination. The Supreme Court found that the appointment was invalid due to the reservation policy and that Jadhav could not claim a right to the position based on the initial error. The court noted that the selection process was flawed and that the mistake did not confer any legal rights to Jadhav. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision and leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Termination of Services - Mistake of Fact - Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, Section 59(1) - The court held that a mistake in the appointment process does not create an indefeasible right for the employee, especially when the post was reserved for a specific category. The appointment of the appellant was deemed illegal due to the reservation rules, leading to the dismissal of the appeal (Paras 1-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a mistake of fact rectified subsequently in relation to implementation of roster of reservation would be a sufficient reason for terminating the services of a person appointed under that mistaken impression?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's ruling that the appointment was invalid due to reservation rules and that no indefeasible right was conferred upon the appellant.
Law Points
- Reservation in employment
- Mistake of fact
- Indefeasible right
- Writ jurisdiction
- Appointment procedure
