Case Note & Summary
The case involved cross-writ petitions arising from the order of the College Tribunal for Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, which partly allowed the appeal of Prof. H.P. Gitte, an employee of Jawahar Education Society. Prof. Gitte was appointed as Incharge Principal of Vaidyanath College in 1991 and later regularized to the principal's pay scale in 1993. However, internal disputes between two factions of the society’s managing committee led to his termination on 29 December 1993 without any enquiry. He was reverted to his substantive post of lecturer. Aggrieved, he approached the College Tribunal, which declared the termination illegal but instead of reinstating him, awarded compensation of six months' pay. Both Prof. Gitte (seeking reinstatement) and the then-president of the society (challenging the compensation) filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. The High Court heard extensive arguments. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the termination was illegal and reinstatement should follow, emphasizing that the termination was a result of internal rivalries. The respondents contended that the appointment was temporary, not in compliance with University statutes, and the petition was bad for non-joinder of the educational trust. The University’s counsel submitted that refusal to grant approval to the petitioner’s appointment was justified as the appointment was not made through a selection committee as required by Statute 219. The Court analysed the legal framework under the Marathwada University Act, particularly Statutes 217, 218, 219, and 222. It noted the prevalent practice of appointing incharge principals without following statutory procedures and referred to a Division Bench direction in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.5157/2000 to discontinue such practice. Relying on the decision in State of Haryana v. S.M. Sharma, the Court considered the discretionary nature of relief in service matters. It held that while the termination was indeed illegal for want of natural justice, the petitioner was only an incharge principal and a regular principal had already been appointed. Given the lapse of time and changed circumstances, reinstatement was not appropriate, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was adequate. Consequently, both writ petitions were dismissed, and the Tribunal’s order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Incharge Principal - Natural Justice - Marathwada University Act, Statutes 218, 222 - The petitioner was removed from the post of Incharge Principal without any enquiry or opportunity to defend, which the Tribunal found illegal. The High Court examined the circumstances and affirmed that the termination was illegal for want of natural justice compliance. Held that the termination order was illegal and improper. (Paras 4-7) B) Service Law - Reinstatement vs Compensation - Discretionary Relief - Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Not mentioned) - The Tribunal awarded six months' compensation instead of reinstatement. The High Court considered the facts: the petitioner was only an Incharge Principal, the post was temporary, and a regular Principal had been appointed in the interim. Held that reinstatement was not warranted, and compensation was adequate. (Paras 8-10) C) Education Law - Appointment of Principal - Statutory Compliance - Marathwada University Act, Statute 219 - The practice of appointing Incharge Principals without a properly constituted selection committee was deprecated. The Court noted that the University had discontinued this practice. Held that the petitioner's appointment, not being through a selection committee, did not confer a right to continue as Principal, underscoring the need for statutory adherence. (Paras 8-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner from the post of Incharge Principal was illegal; whether the Tribunal ought to have ordered reinstatement instead of compensation; whether the appointment of the petitioner as Incharge Principal complied with the statutory requirements of the Marathwada University Act
Final Decision
Both writ petitions were dismissed, and the Tribunal’s order was upheld. The High Court found the termination illegal but confirmed that reinstatement was not warranted under the circumstances, and the compensation awarded was adequate.
Law Points
- Termination without enquiry is illegal and violates natural justice
- reinstatement is not automatic when initial appointment is temporary or as incharge and circumstances have changed
- compensation is adequate relief in lieu of reinstatement for illegal termination
- appointment of principal must follow statutory selection committee procedure under the university statutes
- practice of appointing incharge principals without following statutory process is improper
