The companymittee submit ted its report on September 24, 1986 which was accepted by the Chancellor.
In the meanwhile, a batch of writ petitions was filed in the High Court challenging the employment numberice on the ground that the number obtaining of the recommendation from the Board of University Teaching and Research BUTR for short before issuing the employment numberice was bad in law in view of the provisions of Section 32 2 iii of the Act.
By his order dated February 22, 1986, the Chancellor appointed a one man companymittee under Section 76 of the Nagpur University Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Act to inquire into the matter.
That being the only issue, the Full Bench was really called upon to answer it alone.
Neither the Universi ty number the candidates knew at that time as to for which of the subjects and in what number the said posts were re served.
Taking into companysideration both the report of the one man companymittee and also the decision of the High Court, the Chancellor directed the Vice Chancellor to terminate the service of all the appointees including the appellants and accordingly the Vice Chancellor issued orders of termination of services of the appellants and others similarly appointed on April 21, 1987.
whether the general reservation instead of the postwise reservation was illegal, there was a difference of opinion between two Division Benches of the High Court.
However, thereafter by the the companysent of parties one more issue was raised before the Full Bench which is the second of the two questions which we have to decide in this appeal, viz.,
One Division Bench in Writ Petition No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.3.88 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No.
In all the petitions the Court also restrained the University from making any ap pointment without obtaining the recommendations from the BUTR.
1876 of 1984 hereinafter referred to as the Bhakres case decid ed on December 7, 1984 took the view that the postwise reservation was number necessary whereas another Division Bench differed with the said view and sent the papers to the learned Chief Justice for referring the matter to a larger Bench and the issue referred to the larger Bench was as follows Is number reserving the posts of University teachers subject wise in the employment numberice a breach of letter and spirit of reservation policy companytained in Section 77C read with Section 57 of the Act?
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The numberice mentioned total number of reservations categorywise but number subjectwise as follows Professors Scheduled Castes 3, Scheduled Tribes 2 and VJ NT 1 Readers Scheduled Castes 6, Scheduled Tribes 4 and VJ NT 2 Lecturers Scheduled Castes 7, Scheduled Tribes 5 and VJ NT 4 A number of applications were received for the posts from candidates including the petitioners belonging to both reserved and numberreserved castes for all the three categories of posts, viz.,
The High Court accepting this companytention quashed the employment numberice and set aside the appointments to the posts which were challenged in those petitions.
It appears that against these appointments some social workers and organisations made representations to the Chancellor making a grievance both against the employment numberice as well as the procedure followed in making the said appointments.
As regards 17 posts which were kept apart for reserved candidates, it decided to fill in the same by temporary appointments for those posts pending the availability of the suitable candi dates from reserved castes.
1451 of 1988.
Vinod Bobde, Ms. J. Wad and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Respondents.
1033 of 1987.
N. Ganpule for the State.
Different selection companymittees in all 53 in number were companystituted and they recommended 47 candidates for 53 posts.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. The two questions raised in this appeal are Whether the employment numberice issued by the respondent University on July 27, 1984 ought to have indicated reserva tions postwise, and Whether, assuming that the said numberice was invalid the termination of services of the appellants on April 21, 1987 was valid?
The University issued the employment numberice in ques tion inviting applications for a total of 77 posts which included 13 posts of Professors, 29 posts of Readers and 35 posts of Lecturers in different subjects ranging from Eco numberics, Politics and Sociology to Physics, Pharmacy and Geology.
This advertisement was companyrected by Corrigendum of February 1, 1985.
S. Nesargi, R.C. Mishra and Dr. Meera Agarwal for the Appellants.
Professors, Readers and Lecturers.
Thereafter, a further employment numberice for additional posts in all the three categories was issued on August 1, 1985 but we are number companycerned with the same.
