Holding

When no candidate of the reserved category is available, Rule 9(9)(a) permits only a year‑to‑year appointment if the available candidate does not belong to a backward class; therefore, an OBC appointee is entitled to a regular appointment and consequent permanency.

Summary

The first respondent, M.R. Gavali, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on a temporary basis for two consecutive academic years to a post reserved for SC/ST/NT candidates because no such candidate was available. He belongs to the OBC (Hindu Mali) category. Under Rule 9(9)(a) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981, a candidate from another backward class may be appointed on a regular basis when the reserved category candidate is unavailable. The Supreme Court held that since Gavali is OBC, his appointment became regular, giving him permanency under Section 5(2) of the 1977 Act, making his termination unlawful. The Court dismissed the appellants' appeal, upheld the High Court’s reinstatement order, and directed that back wages be paid only from the date the successor (P.B. Lohar) retired (1 March 2005).

Issues considered

The nature of appointment under Rule 9(9)(a) when a candidate from a different backward class fills a vacancy reserved for SC/ST/NT.
Whether the termination of such an appointment violates the permanency provisions of Section 5(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977.
The applicability of the precedent set in Shakuntala Ganpatsa Shirbhate v. Industrial Weaving Co‑op. Society.
The appropriate date from which back wages should be awarded.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977s. 5(2), s. 9

Subjects

Service lawReservationOBCTemporary appointmentRegular appointmentBack wagesRule 9(9)(a)Reinstatement

Judgment

KANKA VALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA AND ORS.
A v.
M.R. GAVALI AND ORS.

DECEMBER 16, 2005
"-

B [RUMA PAL AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] ..
I

t
I
Service Law:

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
C Regulation Act, 1977-Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules,
1981-Rule 9(9)(a)--Candidate of OBC category temporarily appointed as
teacher against backlog of reserved category for two consecutive academic
years on account of non-availability of reserved candidate-Thereafter,
services terminated and another OBC candidate who had served the institution
earlier, appointed against the vacant post-Correctness of-Held: Jn absence
D of candidate belonging to reserved category, Rule 9(9)(a) enjoins year to
year appointment only if available candidate does not belong to backward
class-Candidate appointed occupied reserved post, was of OBC category
and also worked as full time teacher during academic years, thus, was
entitled to regular appointment-Hence, order of High Court directing -
E reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages is upheld

Respondent No.1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher on temporary basis
for one academic year against the vacancy earmarked for reserved categor1
on account of non-availability of reserved category candidate. He was again
appointed for subsequent academic year. Respondent No. 1 filed an affidavit
F that he was appointed on purely temporary basis and would not claim any
permanent right on the said post and on basis of the same, Deputy Director of
Education approved the appointment on totally temporary basis. Thereafter, at
the end of the academic year, the appellant-institution terminated the services
of respondent No.1 and appointed respondent No.3-0BC candidate who had
G served in the appellant-institution for 20 years, in the said vacant post.
Respondent No.1 challenged the termination order claiming permanency and
continuity of service on the ground that he had completed two years of service
and was entitled to the protection having attained the status of a permanent
employee under section 5(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and that he being Hindu Mali
H 864
KANKA VALi SHIKSHAN SANSTHA-v. M.R. GA VALi 865
belongs to OBC category, as such was entitled to the benefit of Rule 9(9)(a) A
of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, I981. Tribunal
dismissed the appeal holding that respondent No. I was appointed on temporary
basis and respondent No. 3 was entitled to be appointed on the said vacant
post. High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and directed respondent
No.I to be reinstated in service with continuity in service and back wages.
Hence the present appeal. B
It was contended on behalf of the Management that the approval to the
appointment of respondent No.I was given purely on temporary basis only for
one academic year after which he was liable to be terminated and as such
could not be entitled to reinstatement by way of permanency on the said post; C
that respondent No. I cannot claim protection under Rule 9(9)(a); and that
the High Court erred in relying on the judgment of this Court in Shakuntafa
Ganpatsa Shirbhate v. Industrial Weaving Co-op. Society.

Respondent No.I contended that he had been appointed under the
provisions of Rule 9(9)(a) since no candidate belonging to the backward class D
category was available during the academic year; that he was entitled to
permanency and continuity in service; and that in view of the certificate issued
by the principal of the appellant-institution that respondent No.I worked as a
full time Assistant Teacher during the two academic years, the termination
order cannot be sustained.
E
Respondent No.2-Deputy Director of Education contended that the
appellants rightly terminated the appointment of respondent No. 1 at the end
of the academic year; that since the vacancy was earmarked for reserved
category other than OBC category as there was no backlog ofOBC category
at the relevant time, it should not have been treated as clear vacancy for OBC F
category but for reserved categories of which the backlog existed; that the
provisions of section 5(2) of the Act and Rule 9(9)(a) of the Rules are not
applicable in the instant case; and that the appointment of respondent No.3
was as per the Rules and is to be upheld because he was already in permanent
service and was eligible for appointment by transfer from secondary to higher:
secondary/Junior College section. G
Dismissjng the appeal, the Court

HELD: I.I. In the absence of a candidate belonging to the reserved
category concerned, Rule 9(9)(a) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private
Schools Rules, 1981 enjoins year to year appointment only if the available H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A candidate does not belong to a backward class. The post occupied by respondent
No.I was a reserved post and he was Hindu Mali which is an OBC category.
As per the Rules in the case of certain contingencies of non-filling of the
posts, a person belonging to some other reserved category could occupy the
said post and respondent No.l being OBC could have occupied the said post
and was entitled to a regular appointment. However, the appellant removed
respondent No.I and subsequently appointed respondentNo.3-0BC candidate
in the vacancy created by the termination of the respondent No. 1. The
subsequent appointment of respondent No. 3 operated to displace respondent
No. I because in any event much prior therf'to the first respondent had duly
crystallized the right. The State also specifically pointed out in the affidavit
C the failure'on the part of the appellant to abide by the rules governing the
appointment. (871-C; 872-E; 875-E]

1.2. The experience certificate issued by the principal of appellant-
institution which categorically confirms the fact that respondent No.I worked
as a full time Assistant Teacher during the period 1994-1996 was withheld
D by the appellant before this Court and it was filed before the High Court. High
Court took into account the relevant facts of the case and arrived at an
accurate and correct conclusion as regards the rights of respondent No.I.
(874-C, D; 875-C)

1.3 Appellant is directed to take back respondent No.I in service in the
E vacancy caused due to the retirement of respondent No.3 and to allow him to
discharge the function on the post to ·which he was appointed with immediate
effect with back wages only from the date on which rei;pondent No.3 has retired
and not from the date of his termination till his appointment. (8'76-B)

F Shakuntc.la Ganpatsa Shirbhate v. Industrial Weaving Co-op. Society,
AIR (1994) SC 36, relied on.

CIVIL APPELL<\ TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7553 of 2005.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.2.2004 of the Bombay High Court
G in W.P. No. 3000 of2003.

Shivaji M. Jadhav for the Appellants.

M.D. Adkar, Vijay Kumar, Vishwajit Singh and V.N. Raghupathy for the
Respondents.

H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KANKA VALi SHIKSHAN SANSTHA ''· M.R. GA VALi [LAKSHMANAN,J.] 867
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted. A
Kankavali Shikshan Sanstha and two others are the appellants in this
appeal. This appeal was filed against the judgment and final order dated
05.02.2004 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3000 of
2003 whereby the High Court allowed the said writ petition of the first
respondent herein - Manohar Ramchandra Gavali by setting aside the order B
dated 31.03.2003 of the School Tribunal, Kolhapur and directed that the first
respondent shall be entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity of
service and back-wages.

The short facts of the case are as follows:-
c
Respondent No. I - M.R. Gavali was appointed as Assistant Teacher in
the S.M.Junior College w.e.f. 18.06.1994 on purely temporary basis for the
academic year 1994-1995 i.e. for the period from I 8.06.1994 to 02.05.1995
against the backlog of SC/ST and NT category. Clauses 2,3,7 & 8 of the
appointment order read as follows:-"
D
2. Your appointment is purely temporary for a period from f8.06.l 994
to 02.05.1995 in the leave/deputation vacancy after expiry of the above
period your services shall stand terminated without any notice. OR

3. The terms of your employment and condition of service shall be as
laid down in theMaharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions E
of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the rules made thereunder.

7. Your appointment is conditional subject to the approval of the
Education Department.

8. This post is reserved for Schedule Caste and if candidate of that F
category will be available, your service will be terminated."

The Deputy Director of Education approved the said appointment by
his Jetter of approval d.ated 04 .04. I 99 5.

The appellant-Institution sought to fill up the backlog against the G
reservation by publishing advertisement in the newspapers. However, the
particular backward class candidate was not available. On account of non-
.' availability of the ST reserved category candidate, respondent No. I - M.R.
Gavali was again appointed temporarily on 08.06.1995 for the academic year
1995-96. It was made clear that the said appointment is liable to be terminated H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A as and when a candidate from the backward class is made available and that
the said appointment was subject to the approval of the Education Departme.nt.

Respondent No. l submitted an affidavit on 24.11.1995 stating that his
appointment in the 3rd appellant college was only till 02.05.1995 and that his
appointment is totally temporary and on the backlog of SC, ST and NT and
B only for the academic year 1995-96. On 31.01.1996, respondent No. I again
submitted an affidavit on a bond paper stating that the said appointment is
temporary and that he will not claim any permanent right on the said post.
On the basis of the aforesaid affidavit, the Deputy Director of Education
approved the said appointment on totally temporary basis for the year 1995-
C 96 due to the backlog of SC/ST candidate.

Despite repeated efforts, due to non-availability of SC/ST reserved
category candidate, and as the said post was filled on purely temporary basis
for the academic year 199 5-1996, the appellant issued a notice of termination
on 26.03.1996 to respondent No.l terminating his services at the end of the
D academic year viz., from 30.04.1996. The termination notice reads thus:-"

Termination Notice
Shri M.R.Gavali
(M.A. B.Ed)
Asst. Teacher
E S.M. Jr. College of Sc. & Commerce,
Kankavli, Dist. Sindhudurg
Sub: Termination as Asstt. Teacher after completion of your service.
Ref-Deputy Director Kolhapur Division
UM-l/KV/SM/95-96/5428-30 dt. 13.2.1996
F
Sir,

Your appointment was as an Asst. Teacher in S.M. Jr. College,
Kankavli against the post reserved for (S.C./S.T./N.T.). The management
made many efforts to fill post of the said category candidate. As per
G S.S. code No.9, Sub-rule No.9(1), the post was filled as a temporary
teacher only for the academic year 1995-96 and the education
department had approved the above post for only the said academic
year. As per the above reference letter your appointment is coming to
a close. So as per this letter we intimate you that you are terminated.
(Your services are terminated).
H
\
KANKAVALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAl'. M. R. GA VALi [LAKSHMANAN,J.] 8(}9

You have to hand over all your educational matter, the library A
books and intimate the office before 30.4.1996.
Sd/-
Chairman
School Committee
S.M. High School Kankavli B
Dist. Sindhudurg
Place Kankavli
Dt. 26.3.1996"
Respondent No.3 - P.B.Lohar (respondent No.5 in the High Court) who
belongs to the OBC category and being duly qualified was transferred since C
l 0.06.1996 in the said vacant post as he had served in the appellant-Institution
for 20 years at Secondary School. Being aggrieved by the order oftennination
dated 26.03.1996, respondent No. I approached the School Tribunal, Kolhapur
by filing Appeal No.50of1996 under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees
of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter
referred to as the "M.E.P.S. Act"). The Tribunal, vide judgment and order D
dated 31.03.2003, dismissed the said appeal filed by respondent No. I and held
that in view of the documentary material placed on record, respondent No. I
was appointed on a temporary basis and that P.B. Lohar - respondent No.3
in this Court (respondent No.5 in the High Court) was entitled to be appointed
on the said vacant post. Respondent No. I challenged the order passed by
the Tribunal dated 31.03 .2003 in the High Court by filing a writ petition. The E
High Court allowed the said writ petition by the impugned order dated 05.02.2004
by setting aside the order dated 31.03.2003 of the School Tribunal, Kolhapur
and directed that respondent No. I shall be entitled to reinstatement in service
with continuity of service and back-wages. Aggrieved by the order dated
05.02.2004, the appellant-Management has filed the above appeal in this F
Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the Management Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav
submitted that the High Court has gravely erred in not considering the
documentary evidence on record which, inter alia, includes the affidavits
given by respondent No. I himself stating that he was appointed on purely G
temporary basis and that he would not claim any right of permanency on the
said post. It was further submitted that the approval to the said appointment
of respondent No. I was given purely on temporary basis only for the academic
year 1995-96 and, therefore, respondent No. I could not be entitled to
reinstatement by way of permanency on the said post. H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Learned counsel for respondent No.I - Mr. M.D. Adkar submitted that
the first respondent had been appointed under the provisions of Rule 9(9)(a)
since no candidate belonging to the backward class category was available
during the year 1995-9.6 and that the tenure of his appointment would come
to an end upon the conclusion of the academic year upon which his services
B would end. The respondent filed an appeal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S.
Act before the School Tribunal contending that he had completed two years
of service and was entitled to the protection of having attained the status of
a permanent employee under Section 5(2) and that since the respondent
belongs to the Hindu Mali community which is recognized as an OBC he was
entitled to the benefit of Rule 9(9)(a) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private
C Schools Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "M.E.P.S. Rules") and in
that capacity to permanency and continuity of service.

On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the Management that
the view of the School Tribunal was correct and ihat the first respondent
cannot be held as a deemed permanent employee or cannot claim protection
D under Rule 9(9)(a) of the M.E.P.S. Rules.

The appeal was opposed by respondent No.2 the Deputy Director of
Education. It was submitted that the appellants are bound to keep desired
percentage of backward class communities as laid down in Rule 9(7) of the
M.E.P.S. Rules and thus are duty bound to fill in the new vacancies as per
E backlog of OBC categories and since the appellants have given temporary
appointments for the academic year to respondent No.I during 1994-95, 1995-
96 and thus have been accepted in writing by respondent No. I, the provisions
of Rules 9(8) and 9(9)(a) do not attract in this case. It was further contended
that the appointment of respondent No. I during the year I 994-95 and I 995-
F 96 were purely temporary and for one academic year each and that the
appointments are rather tenure appointments and as such the appointment of
respondent No. I was rightly been terminated by the appellants by the end
of the academic year 199 5-96 as per provisions of Ru le 28 sub clause (I) of
the M.E.P.S. Rules. It was further contended that since the vacancy was .
earmarked for reserved category other than OBC category as there was no
G backlog of OBC category at the relevant time and such as the same should
not have been treated as clear vacancy for OBC category. On the contrary,
the said vacancy should have been treated as clear vacancy of reserved
categories of which the backlog existed. Under the circumstances, the
provisions of Section 5(2) of the M.E.P.S. Act and Rule 9(9)(a) of the M.E.P.S
H Rules are not applicable in the case of respondent No. I. It was further argued
KANKAVALISHIKSHANSANSTHA''- M.R.GAVALl[LAKSHMANAN,J.l 871

-· by counsel for respondent No.2 that since the appointment of respondent
No. l was purely temporary it has rightly been terminated as per provisions
A

of Rule 28(1) of the M.E.P.S. Rules and that respondent No.3 - P.B. Lohar
being already in permanent service and being eligible for appointment by
transfer from secondary section to higher secondary/Junior College Section,
he came to be appointed accordingly and, therefore, the action of the appellant
is as per the rules and need be upheld. B
Rule 9(9)(a) ofM.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 provides as follows:-

"9(9)(a) In case it is not possible to fill in the teaching post for which
a vacancy is reserved for a person belonging to a particular category
of Backward Classes, the post may be filled in by selecting a candidate C
from the other remaining categories in the order specified in sub-rule
(7) and if no person from any of the categories is available, the post
may be filled in temporarily on a year to year basis by a candidate not
belonging to the Backward Classes."

This rule came up for consideration before this Court in Shakuntala D
Ganpatsa Shirbhate v. Industrial Weaving Co-operative Society and Ors.,
AIR (1994) SC 36. That was a case where the appellant who belonged to a
backward class was appointed initially as a Teacher in biology for a period
of one year. The appointment was thereafter extended from year to year on
several occasions and the last appointment was until further orders. The E
vacancy was earmarked to a candidate belonging to a Nomadic Tribe. In the
absence of a candidate belonging to a Nomadic Tribe, the appellant was
appointed. The appointment of the appellant came to be terminated immediately
upon a candidate belonging to a Nomadic Tribe becoming available. This
Court upheld the contention of the appellant that since the appellant was a
member of one of the backward classes referred to in the rule, she was entitled F
to a regular appointment in the very first year when no person belonging to
Nomadic Tribe was available. The Court held the argument of the appellant
was well founded. The fourth respondent in this case was available for
appointment later on in 1988. This Court noted that on the first occasion when
the post was being filled up there was no member of Nomadic Tribe available G
for appointment. This Court then held thus:

"(9)(a) In case it is not possible to fill in the teaching post for which
a vacancy is reserved for a person belonging to a particular category
of Backward Classes, the post may be filled in by selecting a candidate
from the other remaining categories in the order specified iri sub-rule H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A (7) and if no person from any of the categories is available, the post ..
may be filled in temporarily on an year to year basis by a candidate
not belonging to the Backward Classes" ..

Since the appellant is a member of one of the backward classes
referred to in the said Rule, she was entitled to a regular appointment
B in the very first year when no person belonging to a Nomadic Tribe
was available.

The argument of the learned counsel appears to be well founded.
Admittedly the respondent No.4 was available for appointment only
in I 988. On the first occasion when the post was being filled up, there
C was no member of a Nomadic Tribe available for appointment. In the
absence of a candidate belonging to a Nomadic Tribe, the Rule enjoins
year to year appointment only if an available candidate does not
belong to the backward classes. The question, therefore, is whether
the appellant belongs to a backward class."

D The law laid down by this Court on the interpretation of Rule 9(9)(a) is
in our view resolves the controversy in the present case. The first respondent
was appointed in I 994. The vacancy was reserved for an ST candidate. At
that stage there was no candidate belonging to ST available. There is no
dispute about the fact that the first respondent belongs to the Hindu Mali
E community which is an OBC. In the circumstances, in terms of the provisions
of Rule 9(9)(a) since no other candidate belonging to ST was available, the
first respondent was entitled to appointment on a regular basis. This Court,
in the above case, held that in the absence of a candidate belonging to the
reserved category concerned, the rule enjoins year to year appointment only
if a available candidate does not belong to a backward class. The respondent
F belonging as he does to a backward class was entitled to a regular appointment.
The subsequent appointment of P.B. Lobar, the 3rd respondent herein again,
operates to displace the first respondent because in any event much prior
thereto the first respondent had duly crystallised the right. In any event, it
has not been demonstrated before this Court that the 3rd respondent was
G appointed subsequently in the vacancy created by the termination of the first
respondent.

It was argued on the side of the Management that the High Court
gravely erred in placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Shakuntala
Ganpatsa Shirbhate v. Industrial Weaving Co-op. Society, (supra) inasmuch
H · as the facts involved in these two cases are entirely different. In the said cited
KANKA VALI SHIKSHANSANSTHA v. M.R. GA VALi [LAKSHMANAN,J.] 873
case, the appointment of the appellant therein was initially for a period of one A
year which was extended from year to year several times and the last order
passed in his favour mentioned the appointment until further orders. However,
it was further argued that the appointment of respondent No. I in the instant
case is only for the academic year 1995-96 wherein it is made clear to the said
respondent that the said appointment is liable to be terminated after the said B
period. Thus, the said case would not be applicable to the facts of the present
case. This contention, in our view, has no force. In the instant case, the
appointment was extended from time to time on year to year basis on several
occasions. This Court has clearly held that in the absence of a candidate
belonging to a Nomadic Tribe the rule enjoins year to year appointment only
if an available candidate does not belong to the backward classes. The C
appointment order also clearly stipulates that terms of appointment and
conditions of service shall be as laid down in the M.E.P.S. (Conditions of
Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the rules made thereunder and that the
appointment is conditional subject to the approval of the Education Department
and that the post is reserved for SC and if candidate of that category will be
available, the services will be terminated. In the instant case, the appointment D
of the first respondent was approved by the Education Department on all
occasions and that the Management, the Teacher and the Department are all
aware that the post in question has been granted on totally temporary basis
due to the backlog of ST candidate. It is also a matter of record that the
appointment of the first respondent was ·sanctioned on the basis of the E
approval and NOC of three-member Committee.

While challenging the order of termination as illegal the first respondent,
in his appeal before the Tribunal, prayed for an order to make him permanent
in service which reads thus:
F
(I) Since I have completed two years of service in 1994-95 and 1995-
96. I think that there is no authority to terminate my services (in
accordance with Rule 4(6) of Service Rules). Similarly since I
have completed two years service, I am entitled for protection
to be permanent in service as per Rule 5(2) ofM.E.P.S. (Condition
of Service) Rules, 1977. Therefore the termination order is illegal G
and not executable.

(2) Jam myself belonging to Hindu Mali OBC category and therefore
I am protected under rule 9(7). Similarly as.my appointment is as
per rule 9(9)(a) and I am from OBC, I am entitled to be made
H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A pennanent and continue the service. It is requested that this may
also be considered.

The information in brief is as follows:

I. Since two years service is completed (Probation period)
Protection for condition of service is granted u/s 4(6) & 5(2) of
B the Act.
2. I am Hindu Mali and belong to OBC category. Hence entitled for
protection & continuity of service under rule 9(7) & 9(9)(a) of
the Rules.

C In our opinion, the High Court has rightly placed reliance on the decision
of this court in Shakuntala Ganpatsa Shirbhate v. Industrial Weaving Co-
op. Society, (supra). It was brought to our notice by the first respondent in
the counter affidavit filed by him a decisive and clinching document has been
unfortunately withheld by the appellant before this Court and it was filed
before the High Court. It is the certificate dated 19.06.1996 issued by the
D principal of the appellant institution which categorically confirms the fact that
respondent No. I worked as a full time Assistant Teacher during the period
18.06.1994 to 01.05.1996. In view of the above certificate, it is submitted that
the finding recorded by the Tribunal is clearly erroneous and, therefore,
cannot be sustained. This document has been marked as Annexure-C I which
E is the copy of the Experience Certificate dated 19.06.1996 issued by the
principal of the appellant institution which reads thus:

"Kankavali Shikshan Sanstha's

SHIVAJI MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL
F
Late Karanaveer Yashwantrao Naik Technical Wing

&

Junior College of Science & Commerce, Kankavali,
G Dist. Sindhudurg

EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Shri Manohr Ramchandra Gawali, M.A. B.Ed. was
H in service of this School's Higher Secondary Section as full time Assistant
KANKA VALi SHIKSHAN SANSTHA v._M.R. GA VALi [LAKSHMANAN,J.) 875

Teacher to teach Marathi subject from 18.6.1994 to 1.5.1996. He has been paid A
pay of Rs.2000-3500 of the Higher Secondary level.

His School work during period of service was very much satisfactory.
Hence issued this certificate.
Kankavali B
Dated: 19.6.1996
Sd/-
Principal
S.M. Junior College of Science
& Commerce Kankavali
In our opinion, the High Court taking into account of the relevant facts
c
of the case arrived at an accurate and correct conclusion as regards the rights
of respondent No.l. It may not be out of place to mention that the post
occupied by respondent No. I was a reserved post and as per the rules in the
case of certain contingencies of non-filling of the posts, a person belonging
to some other reserved category can occupy the said post and respondent D
No.l being belonging to OBC could have occupied the said post. However,
the appellant removed respondent No. I and surprisingly transferred respondent
No. 3 to the said post and as such respondent No.4 also belongs to the same
reserved category as of respondent No. l. It ma:y not also be out of place to
mention that in the affidavit filed by the State, the State has specifically E
pointed out the failure on the part of the appellant to abide by the rules
governing the appointment.

It has been demonstrated before us that the third respondent was
appointed subsequently in the vacancy created by the termination of the first
respondent. It was also submitted at the time of hearing that the third F
respondent has retired from service.

The first respondent lost his job on 26.3 .l 996 in spite of Rule 9(9)(a) of
the M.E.P.S. Rules and the judgment of this Court in the case of Shakuntla
Ganpatsa Shirbhate v. Industrial Weaving Co-op. Society & Ors., (supra).
During the course of arguments, a statement was made on behalf of respondent G
No. I that respondent No.3 Mr. P.B. Lohar, has retired and such statement was
not contradicted by the counsel for the Management. During the course of
arguments, we indicated that respondent No.1 will be entitled for the job with
immediate effect. However, the back- wages can be granted only from the date
on which the third respondent Mr. P.B. Lohar has retired. Mr. S.M. Jadhav,
H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A learned counsel appearing for the appellants informed us that Mr. P.B. Lohar
retired on 28.2.2005.

In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the direction should
be issued to the appellant to take back respondent No. I in service in the
vacancy caused due to the retirement of respondent No.3 and to allow him
B to discharge the function on the post to which he was appointed. We make
it clear that respondent No. I will not be entitled to back wages from the date
of his termination till his appointment. He will be entitled for the job with
immediate effect with back wages only from 1.3.2005. We feel that this direction
of ours would meet the ends of justice.
c For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the appeal filed by the appellant
Institution is devoid of any merit and hence we dismiss the same by modifying
the order dated 5.2.2004 passed by the High Court as indicated above. The
interim order passed on 21.7.2004 stands vacated in view of the final order
and directions issued in the main appeal. However, there shall be no order as
D to costs.

NJ. Appeal dismissed.