Case Note & Summary
Background - The dispute involves appointment of a full-time lecturer in Marathi at Vijaysinh Yadav Art, Commerce and Science College, Peth Vadgaon, run by Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. Two candidates, Dr. Mrs. Padma Shamrao Patil (the petitioner) and Shri Ramchandra Uttam Dhavale (respondent no.3), applied for the post under open category. The selection committee placed respondent no.3 at Serial No.1 and the petitioner at No.2. Facts - The management claims to have sent an appointment order to respondent no.3, who did not join within seven days. Respondent no.3 denies receiving such order and later wrote a letter to the University stating disinterest as the college was non-grant. Meanwhile, the management issued an appointment order to the petitioner on 22nd November, 2000, and she joined on 29th November, 2000, on probation for two years. The University approved her appointment. After about eight months, respondent no.3 complained to the University about the petitioner’s appointment. An enquiry committee of the University conducted proceedings without notice to the petitioner, resulting in termination of petitioner’s services on 5th August, 2002, and appointment of respondent no.3 on ad-hoc basis. Legal Issues - The primary question was whether the College Tribunal correctly allowed respondent no.3’s appeal seeking reinstatement and dismissed the petitioner’s appeal against termination. Issues included the binding nature of a selection committee’s recommendation, the effect of the candidate’s disinterest letter, delay in approaching the Tribunal, and compliance with natural justice in the enquiry proceedings. Arguments - The petitioner contended that the letter of disinterest was genuine and should not have been disregarded; that the Tribunal ought to have considered the inordinate delay of eight months and the petitioner’s 17-year service; that the proper remedy for respondent no.3 was before the Chancellor under the Universities Act; and that the selection committee only had recommendatory powers, so the management was free to appoint the petitioner. The management submitted to the court’s jurisdiction. (The complete arguments are not available in the provided text.) Court’s Analysis and Decision - The provided text only includes the initial facts, procedural history, and part of the petitioner’s arguments. It is cut off before the court’s reasoning and final order. Consequently, the court’s analysis, ratio decidendi, and final decision are not available in this extract.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the College Tribunal's order dated 31st January, 2018 in Appeal Nos.59 of 2002 and 3 of 2007, reinstating respondent no.3 and dismissing petitioner's appeal, was correct or should be set aside.
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (08) 129
Writ Petition No.2669 of 2018 with Writ Petition No.2670 of 2018
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Shirish V. Pitre for respondent no.2; Mr. N.B. Bandiwadekar for respondent no.3; Ms. Vaishali Nimbalkar AGP for respondent no.4; Mr. Amit Borkar for respondent no.5
Dr. Mrs. Padma Shamrao Patil
The President Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Vadgaon, Kolhapur; The Principal Shri Vijaysinh Yadav Art, Science and Commerce College, Peth Vadgaon; Shri Ramchandra Uttam Dhavale; The Joint Director, Higher Education, Kolhapur Region; The Registrar, Shivaji University, Kolhapur; The Director, College and University Development Board, Shivaji University, Kolhapur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the College Tribunal which reinstated a lecturer and dismissed the petitioner's appeal.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the College Tribunal's order dated 31st January, 2018 and to restore the termination of respondent no.3, thereby protecting her own employment.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's termination was set aside by the Tribunal and respondent no.3 was reinstated; petitioner, who had been in service for 17 years, challenged that order.
Previous Decisions
Appeal No.59 of 2002 (petitioner's appeal against termination) was allowed on 11th March, 2003, setting aside termination and reinstating petitioner. Then in Writ Petition No.4267 of 2003 by respondent no.3, the High Court on 7th September, 2017 set aside that order and remanded the matter. The Tribunal then passed the impugned order on 31st January, 2018, partly allowing respondent no.3's Appeal No.3 of 2007 and dismissing Appeal No.59 of 2002.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal erred in not considering the letter dated 26th May, 2001 wherein respondent no.3 expressed disinterest.
Whether the delay in approaching the Tribunal should have been considered.
Whether the petitioner's 17-year service should have been considered.
Whether the rejection of the Selection Committee's recommendations was justified.
Submissions/Arguments
Respondent no.3's letter dated 26th May, 2001 indicating disinterest was genuine and should not have been doubted.
The appeal was belated.
Petitioner's 17-year service should have been given weightage.
Respondent no.3 should have approached the Chancellor under the Universities Act.
The Tribunal's interpretation of Statute No.195 was erroneous; the selection committee is recommendatory and management can differ.
Judgment Excerpts
The impugned order sets aside an order of terminating service of respondent no.3 dated 23rd June, 2003 and directs reinstatement of respondent no.3 with continuity of service and all consequential benefits but without back wages from termination till reinstatement.
The Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 11th March, 2003, found that the enquiry conducted by the committee was unilateral and without granting an opportunity to the petitioner to be represented.
Procedural History
The petitioner and respondent no.3 applied for the post of full-time lecturer in Marathi. The selection committee placed respondent no.3 at Serial No.1 and the petitioner at Serial No.2. The management sent appointment letter to respondent no.3, who did not join; later the petitioner was appointed and joined on 29th November, 2000. Respondent no.3 complained to the University in 2001, leading to an enquiry committee that recommended termination of the petitioner. Petitioner's services were terminated on 5th August, 2002. Petitioner filed Appeal No.59 of 2002 before the College Tribunal, which on 11th March, 2003 set aside the termination and reinstated the petitioner. Respondent no.3 filed Writ Petition No.4267 of 2003; on 7th September, 2017 the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter. Respondent no.3 also filed Appeal No.3 of 2007. The Tribunal heard both appeals and passed the impugned common order on 31st January, 2018, partly allowing Appeal No.3 of 2007 and dismissing Appeal No.59 of 2002, thereby reinstating respondent no.3 and rejecting petitioner's challenge.
Acts & Sections
