LexRAMESH GAJENDRA JADHAV versus SECRETARY, LATE S.G.S.P. MANDAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010) 8 S.C.R. 513 RAMESH GAJENDRA JADHAV v. SECRETARY, LATE S.G.S.P. MANDAL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7215 of 2008) JULY 22, 2010 ·[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.) Service law - Termination - Advertisement for post of regular lecturer of Geography - Post approved by University A B - Appointment of appellant to the post - Mistake of fact in C relation to implementation of roaster of reservation - ... Rectification of error by terminating services of appellant - · ·rssuance of fresh advertisement - Post reserved for SC category - Appointment of respondent no. · 5 to the said post - Challenge to, by appellant - Held: Collective error on part D of the University and College led to the instant situation - Mistake of fact cannot vest indefeasible legal right in appellant to be appointed or deemed Jo have been appointed against a reserve category while-he is a ccmdidate belonging _ to the open category and was so appointed by the Selection E Committee - Order of High Court UJJholding the termination order of appellant, is correct - Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 - s. 59(1). The appellant was appointed as a regular lecturer of Geography in the respondent college. The principal terminated the services of the appellant. The appellant then filed an appeal on the ground that the oral termination was unjustified. The tribunal quashed the termination order and directed reinstatement. However, F the High Court set aside the order of the tribunal. It held G that the post of the lecturer in Geography was reserved for SC category alone and was not meant for open category candidates; that advantage could not be given to the appellant on account of any mistake of the 513 H 514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ! [~010] 8 S.C.R. A authorities; and that on mere selection, the appellant did not have an indefeasible right to the post. The Division Bench of High Court upheld the order. Hence the appeal. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 A post is determined to be part time or full time depending on the work load in a particular college. The University, vide its letter dated 5th December, 1998, had referred to the requirements which a college ought to satisfy. In response thereto, the College had completed C the requirement and had clearly stated that in Geography, there was one vacancy of part time lecturer which was for open category. This had been approved by the University, but subsequently it was noticed that the University by mistake had granted approval for full time D lecturer in English and Geography, while the advertisement had indicated the vacancy of a part time lecturer in Geography. It is expected and desirable of the Authorities concerned to have corrected the mistake at that juncture itself. However, because of inter se E correspondence between the University, College and the Director of Education, the matter got delayed and in the meanwhile the Selection Committee, on the basis of the approval letter issued by the University, selected the appellant as full time lecturer to the post vide letter dated F 3rd March, 1999. The University had informed the College that as per the roaster, the full time regular vacancy of the College has to be given to SC category candidate and, therefore, earlier advertisement should be cancelled and fresh advertisement should be issued. [Para 7] [522-8-F] G 1.2 A vacancy which has been reserved for SC category cannot be converted to an open category unless and only if specified and that too only if the rules permit. Nothing of this kind has been placed on record and in fact no submission in that behalf has been made by any H of the parties. Once the post was reserved for SC RAMESH GAJENDRA JADHAV v. SECRETARY, LATE 515 S.G.S.P. MANDAL & ORS. category, the Authorities could only fill up the said post A by a reserved category candidate. No advertisement for reserve candidate had been issued earlier, as such, none would have applied for the same being a post for open category and this mistake vitiated the entire selection process. The fresh advertisement was issued and B Respondent No. 5 was appointed to the said post, resulting in termination of services of the appellant. Of course, to some extent, this mistake was ought to be corrected at least partially by University by giving the approval to the full time post for one academic year 1999- c 2000 in favour of the appellant. No doubt, appella
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.