9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant was duly interviewed by the local selection committee and was appointed as full time lecturer in English on 22.11.1993 on temporary basis for 2nd term subject to the approval of the University. The appellant joined as Lecturer and has been working since then. The College advertised a number of vacant posts for the academic year 1994-1995 on 29.4.1994 by way of newspaper publication. One of the posts was the post of English Lecturer, but the same was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. The advertisement, however, provided that in case the backward class candidate was not available, then a candidate from the general category would be considered for appointment on year to year basis. No backward class candidate applied for the said post. Three general category candidates applied out of which the Appellant was selected and recommended for appointment by the Six-Members' Selection Committee on 11.7.1994. Vide appointment letter dated 15.7.1994, the Appellant was appointed as full time Lecturer in the college for one academic year as per the advertisement. 4. The problem of non-filling up of reserved seats in Government and Government-aided colleges were subject mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mporary basis on the said post for one academic year on 15.7.1998. Thus as per Government resolution and the University circular, 6th advertisement with interchangeability clause had to be issued. The draft of the said advertisement for the academic year 1999-2000 was forwarded by the College to the University on 3.4.1999. The University duly vetted the said draft advertisement and returned the same to the College on 7.4.1999 for publication. Accordingly, the 6th advertisement was published by the College in Maharashtra Times on 13.4.1999 clearly mentioning that the post was being advertised for the 6th time on interchangeability basis as per Government Rules. However, no Scheduled Caste candidate applied for and reported for interview. 6. The report of the Selection Committee Meeting was forwarded by the College to the University on 30.7.1999 clearly mentioning that no backward class category candidate had reported for interview in English language. The nil report for appointment to the post of lecturer in English was accepted by the University vide letter dated 1.11.1999. In the meantime, the appellant had approached the High Court of Bombay by way of Writ Petition No. 1914 of 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iv) Respondent No. 4 considering the clause for de- reservation and considering the judgment of this court in W.P. No. 1914 of 1999 dated 13th April, 2005 which has taken a view that it is not necessary that after de-reservation, that post must be re-advertised but it is open to the Government to relax the condition, to take the appropriate decision and communicate the same to respondent No. 3. (v) The Petitioner pursuant to the sixth advertisement if no backward class candidate is selected to be continued and the petitioner's services will not be terminated. If the order be adverse it is not to be acted upon for a period of twelve weeks after the communication of the decision of respondent No. 4 by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner. Rule made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- F.I. Rebello,J. Sd/- S.P. Kukday, J. It is relevant to mention here that on the very same day, the very same Bench of the Bombay High Court disposed of two more writ petitions by two similarly situated lecturers of the very same college. In both the cases, the 6th advertisement had been issued and since the teachers had been working for a number of years, the High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of hearing of the review petition an incorrect statement had been made, the appellant filed fresh Writ Petition No. 4851 of 2005. The College filed the counter affidavit bringing the correct facts to the notice of the High Court. However, the High Court refused to entertain the fresh writ petition on 3.8.2005 and passed the following order: CORAM: A.P. Shah & D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ. rd August, 2005 P.C The present petition is in the nature of a review of the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 1914 of 1999. The Petitioner, in fact, sought review of the said order by filing a review application which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 5th May, 2005. It is not permissible for the petitioner to seek the same relief again by filing a fresh petition. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- Judge Sd/- Judge The appellant filed the present appeal by way of three special leave petitions challenging all the three orders passed by the High Court including the first order dated 13.4.2005 passed in W.P. No. 1914 of 1999. This Court vide order dated 24.10.2005 issued notice to the respondent and granted status quo. 11. During the pendency o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th. It is requested that appropriate steps may be taken for de-reservation of the post of Mrs. D.G. Murdeshwar Katre. Thanking you, Yours truly, Sd/-illegible Principal Encl: Form A AVC/DER/202/2006-07 22/6/06 To The Registrar, University of Mumbai, Mumbai-400 032 Sub: De-reservation of post-Mrs. D.G. Murdeshwar- Katre, Lecturer in English Sir, I am forwarding herewith application along with enclosures of Mrs. Deepa G. Murdeshwar Katre, Lecturer in English for De-reservation of post. I request you to look into the matter and do the needful. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, (Dr. S.S. Kelkar) Principal Encl. As above VIDYAVARDHINI'S Annasaheb Vartak College of Arts, Kedarnath Malhotra College of Commerce & E.S. Andrades College of Science (Affiliated to the University of Mumbai) AND Junior Colleges Vasai Road West-401 202, Distt. Thane Ref. No. AVC/DER/1100/2006-07 Date: 24/8/2006 To The Dy. Registrar Spl. Cell, University of Mumbai, Mumbai-400 001. Sub: De-reservation of post: Mrs. D.G. Katre- Lecturer in English Sir, I have to inform you that our Proposal for De-reservation of post of Mrs. D.G. Murdeshwar Katr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as an impression was given that no interviews had been held pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.4.1999 which was clearly belied by the documents of the University itself. It is clear that even the Bench hearing the review petition had been mislead by the respondent-University by making a false statement, the review order dated 5.5.2005 was vitiated by fraud and was liable to be recalled by the High Court. It was also contended that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition in a cursory manner by the impugned order dated 3.8.2005 without appreciating the contentions raised by the appellant which were fully supported by indisputable documents on record, which documents emanated from the College and the University. The writ petition clearly indicates how the High Court had been mislead by the false statements made by the University and the High Court ought to have considered the submissions made by the appellant. 14. The High Court, in our opinion, has erred in law rejecting the writ petition without considering the merits of the matter though the merits of the matter were specifically argued by the appellant and the mis- representations made by the University were brou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... slead the Review Bench of the High Court by sating that no interviews were held. The review order dated 5.5.2005 was totally vitiated due to fraud which compel the appellant to file a fresh writ petition challenging the order of the University of Bombay calling for the 6th advertisement. However, the High Court by the impugned order dated 7.8.2005 dismissed the writ petition by relying on the dismissal of the earlier writ petition and review petition without appreciating that the previous orders had been founded upon fraudulent mis- representations made by the University and the said orders were liable to be recalled. When fraud was clear on the fact of the record, the High Court erred in law in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. 17. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents was not able to controvert the factual statements made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant at the time of hearing. The arguments made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant are fully supported by the records filed before the High Court and also the annexures and material placed before us. We, therefore, have no hesitation in accepting the arguments advanced by the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
