Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner University filed their reply. It was contended therein that when the University required the employees on permanent basis they have to send a proposal to the State Government and unless the Government sanctions the post no permanent appointment can be made. There are restrictions imposed on the petitioners by Section 8 of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994. In order to meet contingencies and with a view to complete the examination process and the allied work incidental thereto within the restricted period, the petitioner had to employ some employees on ad hoc basis. Such appointments are required to be made and the Management Council of the University under its authority fill in these posts on temporary basis. It is set out that the Standard Code is applicable to the non-teaching employees and the University is following the procedure of recruitment of the ad hoc staff as per the Standard Code and makes appointment of these ad hoc employees. It is then set out that the regular recruitment procedure is also there in the Standard Code Rule 1984 for Non-teaching staff of Class III employees. The respondent No. 1, it was contended, was not appointed in terms of Rule 3(III)(b)(1) as prescribed under Standard Code which are applicable for recruiting regular employees.

7. Having heard learned Counsel, the question that really arises is whether the order of the University and College Tribunal ought to be interfered with. There is no dispute that the respondent No. 1 was in the employment of the petitioners. Ordinarily unless the services are no longer required for want of sanction this Court would not continuance another temporary employee being brought in to replace the employee like the respondent No. 1 who otherwise had been selected after following the procedure for temporary appointment. The question really is whether the appointment of respondent No. 1 can be said to be a regular appointment and or a direction could be given to regularise the appointment. The law on the subject is now clear. There is a catena of judgments of the Apex Court to that effect. For a person to be considered to be in regular employment the requirement would be that there must be a regular post available, that post must be filled in by the recruitment Rules in force and by a Committee as constituted in terms of the Rules. It is only when all those requirements are met can the appointment of a persons be said to be regular. In the instant case from reference to the circulars of 17th April, 1994 and 19th June, 1995 it would be clear that they are for appointment on continuous temporary basis. The Circular restricted and/or conferred selection only to sons and daughters of the University Employees, the persons who had worked on temporary basis in the University or persons who are presently working on temporary basis in the University who have already registered their names with the Employment Exchange. In the matters of public employment every authority who satisfies the test of 'State or other Authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India must satisfy the requirement of Articles 14 and 16. Public employment cannot be restricted to a particular class of person unless they fall in the categories which are constitutionally permissible. Otherwise all eligible must be entitled to apply and to be considered. The University is' bound by the Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms and Conditions of Service of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules, 1984. These Rules have been made in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 77A of the University Act including the Bombay University. We are concerned with Rule 3(III) Ministerial and Technical posts included in Class III. The procedure for selection to the post is also set out in Rule 4 which provides that all appointments which are required to be made by nominations or by selection shall be advertised in atleast two daily Newspapers, one of which shall be a Marathi newspaper indicating the minimum academic or other technical qualifications if any, experience required, pay scale and total emoluments admissible for the post, and the reasonable period (which shall not be less than 2 weeks from the date of publication of the advertisement in the newspapers) within which the candidates are required to submit their applications. Simultaneously these vacancies shall also be notified to the concerned Employment Exchanges and the concerned District Social Welfare Officers. The appointment to the Junior post including the Junior Clerks, Clerks and Clerk-cum-Typist are to be by selection. Once that be the case the petitioner University had to comply with the mandate of Rule 4 to make regular appointment. In the instant case it is clear, therefore, that the appointment was not made in terms of Rule 4. Once the appointment was not made in terms of Rule 4 it was not open to the respondent No. 1 to contend that she was appointed on regular basis or for that matter for the Tribunal to proceed on the footing that the appointment was on regular basis and directed reinstatement. In the ordinary course after the period of employment as set out in the appointment letter is over the person so appointed would no longer continue in the post. This is what the University had done by intimating the respondent No. 1 that her services are longer required. The learned University and College Tribunal did not at all address itself to this issue though reference has been made to various judgments. Whether such persons who have been appointed for a longer period need to be regularised is an issue which will not be open to the Tribunal concerned, considering its limited jurisdiction. That can be agitated before appropriate forum where such an issue can be raised. Suffice it to say that the impugned order of the Tribunal having ignored the fact that the petitioner has not complied with Rule 4 and/or the appointment was without following the procedure of Rule 4, discloses an error apparent on the face of the record in having allowed the Appeal preferred by the Respondent No. 1. In these circumstances the impugned order is liable to be set aside.