LexAYURVIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL AND ANR versus MRS. GEETA BHASKAR PENDSE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B A YURVIDY A PRASARAK MANDAL AND ANR. v. MRS. GEETA BHASKAR PENDSE AND ORS. APRIL 12, 1991 [P.B. SAWANT AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] Bombay University Act, 1974-Sections 11, 77-Government resolutions and university directions on reservation/dereservation- Reservation in appointment of college teachers in favour of backward c/asses-Dereservation thereof-Procedure to be followed-Appoint- C ments without following the procedure-Validity of filling up of the post-Directions issued. For the academic year 1983-84, there was a vacancy for the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit, in the College managed by the appellant-Trust. The said post was reserved for candidate from backward classes. The D first Respondent, not belonging to any backward class, applied for the post, even before the appellant-Trust issued an advertisement. An advertisement was issued later without mentioning the academic year for which the appointment was to be made, though admittedly it was for the academic year 1983-84. The advertisement specifically stated that the post was reserved for a backward class candidate and if no such E candidate was available, a candidate from the non-backward classes may be appointed for one year. Within a month, the advertisement was repeated and yet no application was received from any candidate from backward classes. Hence the appellant-trust appointed the First Respondent, who had earlier applied, from 19.3.84 till 30.4.84. F Again, an advertisement was issued in 1984 for the academic year 1984-85. And there was no response from any candidate belonging to backward classes. The First Respondent was interviewed and appointed for one year, till 19.4.85. For the academic year 1985-86, no advertisement was issued. The G First Respondent was again appointed to the said post from July 10, 1985 to April 30, 1986. Thereafter her services were terminated after issue of notice. No appointment was made to the said post for the academic year 1986-87. However, on 1.5.1987, an advertisement was issued inviting H applications for the said post from candidates belonging to all classes, 282 PRASARAK MANDAL v. MRS. PENDSE 283 dereserving the post. Respondents 1 and 5 and another candidate, all A belonging to non-backward classes applied. The 5th Respondent was .::. -.... ( selected and appointed to the said post . Thereafter, in respect of non-payment of salary for certain period and for setting aside her termination order, the First Respondent approached the College Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed her claim for B salary for the relevant periods, but dismissed her claim for reinstate- ment, holding that her appointment was purely temporary and her claim that she should be deemed to have been confirmed because she )I had served for two academic years was not established in the circum- stances of the case. Against the Tribunal's decision, the First Respondent approached c the High Court by way of a Writ Petition. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition holding that notwithstanding the break in her actual appointment, she was continuously in employment from March 19, 1984 to April 30, 1986, and hence entitled to the benefit of the resolu- tions of the State Government and the University directions which, D - according to the High Court, laid down that an employee who was - appointed for two consecutive academic years must be deemed to have been on probation right from the time of the first appointment and, therefore, she should be confirmed in the post. The benefit of full back wages, seniority etc. was also ordered. E Aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court, the appellants preferred the present appeal, by special leave. J... Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD: 1. The appellant-Trust had violated the directions of the F Government as well as of the University in the appointments in question as a result of which neither the appointment of the 1st respondent nor that of the Sth respondent cao be said to have been validly made. Both the appointments were made without following the Government Resolu- - tions and the University directions in the matter of reservation of seats >~ for backward classes which are binding on the college. Unfortunately, G these aspects of the matter which are evident from the record were lost sight of both by the Tribunal and the High Court. [287G-H; 288A] 2.1. Admittedly, the selection of the 5th respondent was made by a committee wher
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.