Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

35. Mr.Borkar, learned counsel for the university submits that the Tehsildar being Quasi and Judicial Authority had inherent powers to recall his own order. He submits that the findings recorded by the Tehsildar and the order passed by him cancelling the caste certificate was admittedly not stayed or challenged when the management council had passed an order. He submits that the university had passed a resolution to conduct an enquiry for looking into the conduct of the petitioner while obtaining a false caste certificate and submitting such false certificate while applying to the post of Principal. He placed reliance on section 42 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. He submits that the Statutes framed by Shivaji University were continued to be in force even after enactment of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 in view of the specific provision made under the said Act. Reliance is placed on Statute 195 of the Statutes framed by Shivaji University which provides for mode of recruitment of teachers and principal.

76. Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the university withdrawing the approval granted to the petitioner as far back as on 15 th September, 1972 after lapse of about 26 years is concerned, the tribunal considered the complaint made by Phule, Ambedkar and Shahu Teachers Association alleging that the petitioner herein had produced a forged and false caste certificate and had secured the appointment in the post of Principal based on such false caste certificate. The tribunal has also placed reliance on the order passed by Shivaji University appointing a committee of three members to make an enquiry about the caste certificate of the petitioner ppn 38 wp-3352.99 (j).doc and the notices given by the said committee to the said petitioner and other witnesses. The said committee recorded the statement of the Principal of the management on 9th October, 1995, of the Honorary Secretary of the management on 9th November, 2015. The said committee also had sent a notice to the said association.

118. Insofar as statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the services of the petitioner from the post of lecturer could not have been terminated is concerned, in view of the alleged submission of the false caste certificate for the post of the Principal is concerned, in my view this submission of the learned counsel is stated to be rejected. An employee who was had submitted a false caste certificate and had obtained benefits based on such false certificate submitted by him for his personal gain while applying for the post of Principal and had deprived the other legitimate candidates who belonged to the schedule caste and ppn 59 wp-3352.99 (j).doc were qualified for the said post of Principal, the petitioner could not have been allowed to continue in the employment even as a lecturer.

119. Insofar as submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not have been reverted to the post of professor from the post of Principal by the management without conducting any enquiry is concerned, in my view there is no merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner had accepted the order or reversion without any protest. In any event since the petitioner had submitted a false caste certificate and had taken advantage on the basis of such false certificate and was appointed in the post of Principal which was reversed for schedule caste candidate though the petitioner was a open category candidate, the management was justified in reverting the petitioner to the post of professor and thereby relieving him from his service based on the order passed by the University. In my view there is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not have been reverted to the post of professor without conducting any enquiry under statute 196(2)(a) framed by the Shivaji University in the facts and circumstances of this case.