Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.34 seconds)T.M.A.Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 31 October, 2002
7. The Tribunal rejected the submission of the petitioners
which was premised on the decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State
of Karnataka, on the assumption that the said judgment relates only to
minority unaided institutions. The Tribunal then held that the
termination is illegal since the prior approval of the Management
::: Uploaded on - 08/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2019 04:22:50 :::
6 wp147.16
Council was not obtained. The Tribunal considers the issue thus :
The Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994
College Of Engineering Of Yeshwant ... vs Asmita Basole (Mrs.) And Another on 6 March, 1987
22. The submission before the Division Bench in College of
::: Uploaded on - 08/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2019 04:22:50 :::
21 wp147.16
Engineering of Yeshwant Rural Education Society, Sewagram vs. Mrs.
Asmita Basole and another was that the termination of the probationer
is bad for want of prior approval of the Executive Council mandated by
the proviso to Article 5 of Statute 53. The Division Bench has held that
Article 5 of Statute 53 applies to a teacher who is already confirmed
prior to 02-1-1978 and to a teacher deemed to be confirmed under
Article 4 of Statute 53 and the proviso to Article 5 of Statute 53 for the
first time created a bar against issuance of notice of termination
without prior approval of the Executive Council in every case
(emphasis supplied). It is, therefore, not possible to countenance the
submission of the learned Counsel Shri Adwait Manohar that in view of
Clause 8 of the Contract Schedule-A to Ordinance 24-College Code
prior approval would not be necessary if a confirmed teacher is to be
terminated for proved misconduct.
The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... vs Shri. Hiralal Rama Jadhav on 22 December, 2017
25. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the enquiry was
conducted fairly. I do not have the benefit of perusing the memo of
appeal. However, it does not appear that the Tribunal was called upon
to consider the submission canvassed by Shri S.P. Bhandarkar that a
finding arrived at by a committee constituted under the Act of 2013
that sexual harassment is proved can culminate only in a
recommendation to the management to initiate action for misconduct.
The submission is that the management cannot base the termination
on the finding recorded in such enquiry without taking recourse to the
service rules. Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, learned Counsel would rely on the
::: Uploaded on - 08/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2019 04:22:50 :::
25 wp147.16
Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra and
others vs. Hiralal Rama Jadhav, (2018) 1 Mh.L.J. 949, to buttress the
said submission. In view of the course which I intend to adopt, it
would not be necessary to record any definite finding on the said
submission, which is left expressly open for decision by the competent
authority of the University.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors (With Other ... on 31 October, 2002
The petitioners further contended that in view of the
enunciation of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481, prior
approval envisaged by Statute 53 of the Maharashtra Universities Act,
1994 was not necessary since the petitioners are not recipients of grant