Nagpur: The art of Panjabrao Deshmukh and Commerce College in Cotton Market here have stopped Mahadorao Khadatkar, a teacher, on March 3, 1992, on the grounds that he did not meet the requirements according to the rules.
Nearly three decades later, the Nagpur bench of the High Court of the Bombay high and set aside the termination of his relationship while ending the University Movement of Nagpur Affiliate College as “illegal”.
Because Khadatkar passed the retirement age during a long legal battle, the benches directed the Memorial Education community Dr.
Panjabrao Deshmukh to pay RS3 Lakh compensation against the 71-year-old applicant who observed that his formative years were wasted in combating legal battles to seek justice.
“It is general knowledge that teachers and lecturers are highly respected in society This process is today, “said the division bench consisting of Atul Chandurkar and Govinda Sanap.
The judges said they could visualize the fate of the applicant who fought mighty institutions such as respondents.
“He will be asked to run the pillar to be sent.
He succeeded before the campus court but lost the battle in HC.
Given the facts taken at the record, one can imagine the suffering and difficulties he might have done,” the bench before partially allowed the appeal Khadatkar (LPA) letter patent.
After the ad was published on June 11, 1989, for the permanent post for economic lecturers in College, the applicant was propounding it.
The specified qualification is the MA degree in the subject in the second division with the bed.
The selection committee recommends its name after considering seven years experience.
College asked NU to approve the appointment, which was originally rejected.
Principal then wrote a letter to Chancellor’s representative to reconsider his decision, as chosen by Khadatkar by the selection panel after examining his credentials since August 1, 1988.
Furthermore, his appointment was approved from November 28, 1990.
Management.
, stopping it in 1992, while quoting government resolution (GR) from January 8, 1991, stating that he failed to do the number of specified periods.
He challenged the decision at the University Tribunal, which put it aside on June 28, 1995, and told respondents to recover it.
The respondents challenged this decision in the HC which aroused the tribunal verdict on May 4, 2014.
The applicant challenged this decision in HC again through LPA, which upholds the court order.
The applicant was represented by Shraddhand Bhutada.
The judge explained that the 1991 GR also could not be applied to a retrospective applicant when his appointment was made in 1988.
“NU also did not agree with the respondent’s stand after the applicant submitted a complaint with the registrant.
The last one wrote to respondents on March 3, 1992, to attract notification of his termination and Does not support their actions, “said the judges.