The appellant had made a request in the meanwhile, submitting that he had been selected by a properly companystituted Selection Committee and he should be given the appointment against a full time lecturer post.
On the basis of this letter, the College had written to the University on 5th December,1998 seeking its approval for the draft advertisement to be published for filling up the vacancy including the post of lecturer of Geography.
In the meanwhile, pursuant to the advertisement issued, candidates including the appellant had applied for the post and interviews were held on 22nd February, 1999.
Aggrieved by the reasoning and decision of the Division Bench, the appellant filed the present appeal.
In furtherance to the advertisement, which appeared in the newspaper on 1st January 2001, amongst other persons Respondent No.
This Writ Petition, when came up for hearing before the High Court, was dismissed vide order dated 22nd August, 2000.
The grievance of the appellant was that he had been appointed as a regular lecturer of Geography in the said College and the oral termination was unjustified, companytrary to Rules and without any basis.
15th September 2000 with full back wages.
No response to the same was received.
However, in the letter issued by the University granting approval to the post of lecturer for the subject of Geography was shown as part time in open category.
Approval thereto was granted by the University on 2nd February, 2001.
On that basis, advertisement was issued, which appeared in the newspaper, for filling up the vacant posts.
Thereafter, the appellant was number permitted to serve which resulted in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, as already numbericed.
To answer this question, we need to numberice the facts which have given rise to the present appeal.
The University granted approval to the schedule of posts as proposed by the management but in the letter dated 1st January,1999 approval was shown to be granted for the post of lecturer for the subject of Geography as full time lecturer.
9935 of 2004, which the learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties and vide a detailed judgment accepted the Writ Petition by setting aside the order of the Tribunal and issuing certain directions.
Vide their letter dated 12 th July, 1999, the College sent a detailed reply giving reference to all the events in response to which, the University, vide letter dated 18.8.1999 stated that those appointed on the post including the appellant must be treated as full time lecturer but only for the academic year 1999 2000 and in the meanwhile steps should be taken to fill up the vacancy keeping in view the direction that the post was reserved for SC category and it was a full time post of lecturer in Geography.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 7 th December, 2006, the appellant filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which was also dismissed vide order dated 6th June, 2007.
Of companyrse, to some extent, this mistake was ought to be companyrected at least partially by University by giving the approval to the full time post for one academic year 1999 2000 in favour of the appellant.
5 also submitted his application.
On 24th December, 1998, the companylege sent a letter to the University forwarding the companyies of the advertisement and requesting for names of the persons to be appointed by Selection Committee.
On the companytrary, the College as well as University ought to have permitted him to companytinue as a regular lecturer in the College.
Resultantly, the Court sustained the order passed by the College and the University authorities.
The Joint Director of Higher Education, Kohlapur Division had sent a letter approving the schedule of appointment of lecturer wherein one additional post of part time lecturer was sanctioned vide letter dated 6th October, 1998.
The College as well as the Secretary of Sambhaji Rao Garad Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mohol, Solapur District, filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay being Writ Petition No.
Respondent No.5 belonged to a reserved category SC , was selected and appointed as lecturer in Geography in the respondent companylege.
The Tribunal, vide its judgment dated 21 st July, 2004 found substance in the case of the appellant and while accepting his appeal the order of termination was quashed and set aside and he was ordered to be reinstated w.e.f.
1689/2000 praying for quashing and setting aside the letter dated 18th August,1999 issued by the University giving approval only for the academic year 1999 2000.
The companytroversy in the present case falls in a very narrow campus Whether a mistake of fact rectified subsequently in relation to implementation of roaster of reservation would be a sufficient reason for terminating the services of a person appointed under that mistaken impression?
5 was appointed to the said post, resulting in termination of services of the present appellant.
The companylege in question was established in the year 1991.
The appellant filed a Writ Petition No.
Swatanter Kumar, J. The services of Ramesh Gajendra Jadhav, the appellant herein, were terminated by Principal of the respondent companylege on 18th August, 1999 who, then filed an appeal before Shivaji University College Tribunal, Pune, University Campus under Section 59 1 of Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.
