Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, an educational society and its college principal, challenged the judgment of the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur, which had allowed the appeal of respondent No.1, a peon, and ordered his reinstatement with back wages. The respondent was appointed as a peon on 1.4.1991 on probation and was confirmed with effect from 10.4.1993. However, at the time of appointment, he was overage (about 38 years), and the petitioners had sought relaxation of age limit from the Director of Education, but no such relaxation was granted. On 30.8.1995, a Senior Auditor pointed out that the appointment was illegal. Consequently, on 6.9.1995, the petitioners terminated the respondent's services. The Tribunal set aside the termination and ordered reinstatement. The High Court, however, held that the initial appointment was void ab initio because it was made without the requisite approval or relaxation of age limit. The court noted that confirmation cannot cure an illegality that goes to the root of the appointment. The court also observed that the respondent had not challenged the termination on the ground that the appointment was illegal; rather, he claimed that he was confirmed. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Tribunal's order, and upheld the termination. The court directed that the respondent be paid his salary up to the date of termination and any other benefits as per rules.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Service - Void Appointment - Confirmation - An appointment made without the requisite approval or relaxation of age limit is void ab initio and cannot be regularized by subsequent confirmation - The court held that the initial appointment of the respondent was illegal as he was overage and no relaxation was obtained, and therefore the termination was valid despite confirmation (Paras 2-5). B) University and College Tribunal - Jurisdiction - Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 - The Tribunal's order of reinstatement was set aside as the appointment itself was void from the beginning - The court held that the Tribunal erred in ordering reinstatement and back wages when the initial appointment was illegal (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of a confirmed employee, whose initial appointment was illegal due to lack of age relaxation, is valid despite the employee having been confirmed.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Tribunal's order dated 29.10.1996, and upheld the termination order dated 6.9.1995. The respondent was directed to be paid his salary up to the date of termination and other benefits as per rules.
Law Points
- Appointment without requisite approval or relaxation of age limit is void ab initio
- Confirmation cannot cure an initial illegality
- University and College Tribunal's jurisdiction under Maharashtra Universities Act
- 1994
