JUDGMENT
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.
1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.
2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioners challenge the common judgment and order dated 31st October, 2002 passed by the Mumbai University and College Tribunal in Appeals No. 38 to 41 of 2002. The Tribunal has dismissed the said Appeals holding that the institution, viz. respondent No. 1 herein, is not an affiliated college within the meaning of the said expression under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, hereinafter called as “the Universities Act”, and that therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the said appeals.
4. The impugned order is sought to be challenged firstly on the ground that the materials on record disclose that the college was affiliated to the University of Mumbai and the objection which was raised by the respondents was in relation to irregularities in the procedural technicalities in the grant of affiliation by the University and not of absence of affiliation itself, and under Section 59 of the Universities Act, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the issue of compliance of procedural technicalities in the matter of grant of the affiliation and for the purpose of jurisdiction to the Tribunal to entertain the appeal what is necessary is to ascertain whether the college is affiliated, and therefore the impugned judgment and order is in excess of jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Besides, the authorities under The National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, hereinafter called as “the NCTE Act” have already granted recognition to the institution for the academic year 2002-03 and till this date, the University of Mumbai has not revoked or withdrawn the affiliation granted to the institution, and therefore the impugned order is bad in law.
5. The learned Advocate for the petitioners, while drawing attention to the fact that the respondent No. 1 college had commenced in the year 1994 and that it continues to enjoy the affiliation to the University of Mumbai and the fact that the petitioners were in continuous service in the institution of about last six years and referring to Section 83 of the Universities Act, submitted that the fact that the University of Mumbai has granted affiliation to the institution was never disputed by the respondents, though there had been some delay in obtaining recognition from the authorities under the NCTE Act. He further submits that there is no jurisdiction to the Tribunal to deal with the validity or legality of the affiliation of the college to the University of Mumbai, as the same squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the University of Mumbai in terms of the provisions of the Universities Act and that therefore there was no occasion for the Tribunal to deal with the same and to reject the Appeals on the said ground. On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, referring to the provisions of law contained in Section 61 of the Universities Act, submitted that apart from ascertaining whether the Appeals pertain to any of the matters under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 59 of the Universities Act, the Tribunal constituted under the Universities Act has jurisdiction to ascertain whether the Appeals are otherwise maintainable or not for any other reason and considering the same, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with the issue pertaining to the legality of the affiliation of the college to the University of Mumbai is not barred and, on the contrary, the appeals can be entertained only in relation to the employees of the affiliated college in terms of Section 59 of the Universities Act, and the said issue of maintainability of the appeal is to be decided by the Tribunal constituted under the Universities Act itself. Attention is also drawn to Section 60 of the Universities Act while contending that the powers of Civil Court are conferred upon the Tribunal which also include the power to decide the points specifically raised by the parties in their pleadings. Further, referring to sections 14 and 16 of the NCTE Act, it has been contended that the grant of affiliation by the University is always subject to recognition of the institution by the authorities under the NCTE Act and since there was no such recognition, the alleged affiliation was bad in law and illegal. The learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 3 – University, referring to sections 83 and 91 of the Universities Act, submitted that no student can be admitted by any college or institution unless prior affiliation is obtained from the University to such college or institution and that is apparent from Sub-section (6) of Section 83 of the Universities Act. Further, referring to letter dated 6th June, 2001 by the University to the institution, it was contended on behalf of the University that the institution was duly informed about the requirement of recognition from the NCTE within the stipulated time, failing which, necessary steps would be taken for withdrawal of the affiliation, further clarifying that no action adverse to the interest of the college has been taken after issuance of the said letter.
6. Undisputedly, the petitioners were employed in the respondent No. 1 -institution, which is a Degree College, and their services came to be terminated on 31st January, 2002. Consequent to the termination of their services, the petitioners filed Appeals in terms of the provisions of law contained in Section 59 of the Universities Act before the Tribunal. It is also an undisputed fact that the college has been affiliated to the University of Mumbai. The only dispute which was sought to be raised before the Tribunal was that there was no recognition obtained from the authorities under the NCTE Act and that therefore the alleged affiliation was bad in law, and consequently there was no affiliation at all in the eyes of law, and hence, no Appeal was maintainable under Section 59 of the Universities Act. However, the fact remains that the University had granted affiliation to the college as per the letter dated 6th June, 2001 and the said affiliation continued without being revoked or withdrawn by the competent authorities of the University and that the said affiliation continues even today. Added to this, a copy of the letter dated 21st August, 2002 by the authorities under the NCTE Act addressed to the Registrar of the University of Mumbai, which is placed on record at page 59 of the petition, discloses that the said Authority has also granted recognition to the said institution in the academic year 2002-03. This is also revealed from the contents of paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment and order.
7. Section 59(1) of the Universities Act provides that “not withstanding anything contained in any law or contract for the time being in force, any employee (whether a teacher or other employee) in any University, college or recognized institution (other than that managed and maintained by the State Government or Central Government or a local authority) who is dismissed or removed or whose services are otherwise terminated or who is reduced in rank by the university or management and who is aggrieved shall have a right of appeal and any appeal against such order shall lie to the Tribunal.” Sub-section (2) of Section 59 provides that such appeal should be filed by the employee, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of dismissal, removal or otherwise termination of services, or reduction in rank, as the case may be, and further in terms of Sub-section (3) thereof, the Tribunal can entertain the Appeal even after expiry of the period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the employee had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period.
8. Section 2(10) of the Universities Act defines the expression of ‘college’ to mean a college conducted by the university, or affiliated to university, situated in the University area. Section 2(36) defines the term ‘University’ to mean any of the Universities mentioned in the Schedule, and Sub-section (37) of Section 2 defines the expression of ‘University area’ to mean the area specified against the name of the University in the Schedule. Item No. 1 of the Schedule refers to the University of Bombay, and it defines the University area to include, District of City of Mumbai as well as Mumbai Suburban. Section 2(3) defines the expression “affiliated college” to mean a college which has been granted affiliation by the University. Undisputedly, the college of the respondent is situated at Mulund within the area comprised under the area of Mumbai Suburban and it is not conducted by the University but is affiliated to the University of Mumbai, the respondent No. 3 herein. The expression ‘conducted college’ has also been defined in Section 2(11) to mean a college maintained and managed by the University and, admittedly, it is not a conducted college.
9. Section 60 of the Universities Act deals with general powers and procedure of Tribunal. Under Sub-section (1) thereof, the powers vested in an appellate Court under the Code of Civil Procedure are given to such Tribunal under the Universities Act. Section 61 deals with the powers of Tribunal to give appropriate reliefs and directions. Sub-section (1) thereof provides that on receipt of an appeal, after giving opportunity to both the parties of being heard, if the Tribunal is satisfied that the appeal does not pertain to any of the matters specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 59 or is not maintainable by it, or that there is no sufficient ground for interfering the order of the university or management, it may dismiss the appeal. Sub-section (2) deals with various reliefs which can be granted by the Tribunal after hearing the parties on merits.
10. Sections 59 to 61 along with sections 57 and 58 are to be found in Chapter VII under the title “Teachers and Employees” in the Universities Act. Section 57 deals with ‘Grievances Committee’. Sub-section (1) thereof provides that there shall be a grievances committee in each University to deal with the grievances of the teachers and other employees of the University, colleges, institutions and recognized institutions and to hear and settle grievances as far as may be practicable within six months, and the committee shall make a report to the Management Council. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that “it shall be lawful for the grievance committee to entertain and consider grievances or complaints which are not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and report to the Management Council to take such action as it deems fit and the decisions of the Management Council on such reports shall be final.” Constitution of the grievance committee shall be as provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 57 and it shall include Pro-Vice Chancellor and where there is no Pro-Vice Chancellor, a member of the Management Council, two members of the Management Council from amongst themselves and one of them should belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and Nomadic Tribes or Other Backward Class by rotation, two members of the Senate nominated by the members of the Senate, one of them being the woman representative of the managements and two members nominated by the members of Academic Council, one of them being the Principal, and the Registrar being the Member Secretary.
11. Section 58 refers ‘University and College Tribunal.’ Sub-section (1) thereof provides that subject to the provisions of Section 66 there shall be one or more University and College Tribunals for one or more Universities in the State of Maharashtra for adjudication of dispute between the employees of the Universities and their respective University and between the employees of the affiliated college or recognized institutions and their respective managements, with regard to the matters specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 59. Other subsections of Section 58 deal with various other aspects relating to the constitution of Tribunal, qualification of person to be appointed as Presiding Officer or the Member of a Tribunal, remuneration and other conditions of service of such an officer or member and provision in respect of the ministerial staff of the Tribunal.
12. Plain reading of above referred provisions of law would disclose that constitution of the University or College Tribunal under the Universities Act has been specified for adjudication of disputes between the employees of the Universities and their respective University and between the employees of the affiliated college or recognized institution and their respective managements and further that such disputes shall be adjudicated with regard to the matters specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 59. As already observed above, the matters which are specified under Section 59(1) are in relation to dismissal or removal of the employees or whose services are otherwise terminated or who are reduced in rank. Section 59 does not specify any other matter for the purpose of adjudication by the University and College Tribunal in an appeal filed by an employee of the University, College or recognized institution. Apparently, it is the Tribunal which is specifically constituted to deal with the matters specified in relation to the disputes between the employees of the Universities, College or recognized institution on one hand and the management on the other. The limits prescribed for the jurisdiction of Tribunal are circumscribed under Section 59 as pertaining to the specified issues regarding dismissal, removal of the employees or otherwise termination of such employees or reduction in rank and no other issues. Undoubtedly, in order to enable the Tribunal to entertain the Appeal under Section 59, it has necessarily to be filed by an employee of a University or College or recognized institution and the college. As already seen above the expression college means a college which has been granted affiliation by the University. In other words. Section 59 clearly specifies that an employee of a college, which enjoys affiliation of the University, having faced with any of the problems specified under Section 59 relating to his service conditions, can file an appeal before the Tribunal. On such appeal being filed, the scope of adjudication of a dispute would necessarily be within the parameters of the jurisdiction given to the Tribunal under Section 59 and the same has to be exercised in the manner specified under sections 60 and 61 as the latter sections deal with the procedural aspect of the matter which are brought before such Tribunal.
13. Section 60 specifically provides that the Tribunal will be entitled to exercise all powers as are vested in Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, while hearing, admitting and disposing of the appeals before the Tribunal. Section 61(1), at the same time, provides that the Tribunal on receipt of an appeal under Section 59 and after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties of being heard, is satisfied that the appeal does not pertain to any of the matters specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 59 or is not maintainable by it, or there is no sufficient ground for interfering with the order of University or Management, it may dismiss the appeal. It also enumerates some of the reliefs those can be given to the parties in such appeal. In short, Section 60 deals with the general powers and procedure of the Tribunal. Section 61 pertains to powers of the Tribunal to give various reliefs in such appeals. Section 61 specifically deals with the powers of the Tribunal to verify whether the appeal satisfies ingredients of Section 59, in the sense whether the matter pertains to any of the issues relating either to the dismissal or removal or otherwise termination of service or reduction in rank of the employees and on such verification, if it is found that it does not pertain to any of the said issues then to dismiss the appeal in limini.
14. The learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 referring to the expression “or is not maintainable by it” in Section 61, sought to contend that the same would disclose jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with all other co-related matters including the issue pertaining to the legality of the affiliation of the college and in that regard also a reference to Section 59 has been made contending that, in terms of Section 59, it is only in case of the affiliated College, that the employees can approach the Tribunal by an appeal and that, therefore, the Tribunal can very well ascertain whether the college is legally affiliated or not. It was also sought to be contended that “or” in Section 61 preceding the expression “not maintainable by it” has to be read disjunctively and if so read, it would disclose wide powers of the Tribunal to deal with the issues including the one pertaining to the issue of affiliation of the college. I am afraid, no such interpretation of Section 61 is permissible. It would virtually amount to rewriting Section 61 thereby enlarging the scope of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal which has been clearly otherwise restricted under Section 59 of the Universities Act. It is not permissible for the Court to interprete the provisions of law relating to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to enlarge the scope thereof which has been otherwise restricted by the legislature in its wisdom. Under the guise of interpretation, it is not permissible for the Court to enlarge the scope of the Tribunal which is clearly referable to the specified issues under Section 59 of the Universities Act. In Section 61, the expression “or is not maintainable by it” has to be read without forgetting the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as specified under Section 59 of the Universities Act. The contention of the learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the expression “or is not maintainable by it” would take into its ambit the issues beyond those specified in Section 59 cannot be accepted. The said expression in Section 61 has to be read as a specific reference to the issues enumerated under Sub-section (1) of Section 59 of the Universities Act and the maintainability of the appeal under the said section. Being so, the harmonious reading of Section 61 would disclose that the maintainability of the appeal to be ascertained by the Tribunal relates to the existence of jurisdictional fact as specified in Section 59 and the prohibition, if any, by virtue of any statutory provision. The expression prior to the word “or” in Section 61 would relate to the issues relating to the dismissal or removal or otherwise termination of service or reduction in rank of the employees and the expression following the word “or” would relate to the issue as to whether the person approaching the Tribunal is an employee of the University or College or recognized institution or whether there is any bar to appeal under any statutory provision. It would certainly include the point as to whether the college is affiliated or not but not the issue of legality or illegality or the compliance of procedural technicalities in obtaining the affiliation. Once it is disclosed from the record that the college is affiliated, that should be the end of matter to consider that the appeal at the instance of the employee of such an institution is maintainable. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 61 to deal with the issue pertaining to maintainability of the appeal cannot travel beyond the above referred points. The inquiry relating to the existence of the jurisdictional fact to entertain appeal would relate to the fact of existence of affiliation and not the legality thereof.
15. The conclusions which are drawn above are inevitable and the same is also revealed from the other provisions of the Universities Act. As already observed above, Section 57(2) of the Universities Act clearly provides for the jurisdiction to the grievance committee to entertain and consider grievances or complaints which are not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Legislature had been conscious about the limitations of the Tribunal in relation to its jurisdiction and therefore has made a specific provision under Sub-section (2) of Section 57 empowering the persons to approach the grievances committee in relation to the matters which are beyond jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Further, Section 66 under Chapter VIII of the Universities Act deals with the powers of the Tribunal constituted under Section 58 to entertain the disputes relating to the admission of the students to affiliated colleges or recognized institutions. The powers of Tribunal in relation to adjudication of such dispute are specified under sections 69 and 70 of the Universities Act.
16. The provisions relating to permission and/or affiliation and/or recognition under the Universities Act are comprised under Chapter X and Section 83 thereof deals with the procedure to be adopted for the purpose of affiliation of the college. Section 91 deals with the powers of withdrawal of affiliation or recognition. Accordingly, the action for withdrawal of affiliation or recognition has to be taken by the Board of College and University Development and the same should be processed through the Academic Council and the recommendations of the Academic Council should be implemented by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. It is also pertinent to note that Section 92(1) provides that no management of a college or recognized institution shall be allowed to close down the college or recognized institution without prior permission of the State Government.
17. Various provisions referred to above would disclose that the University and College Tribunal constituted under Section 58 of the Universities Act has been given specific powers in relation to the appeals by the employees of educational institutions. It is not a Tribunal constituted to deal with each and every grievance of the parties appearing before the Tribunal. While dealing with such appeals, it is required for the Tribunal to ascertain whether the preconditions specified under the relevant provisions are satisfied or not and only thereafter to entertain the appeal. However, in exercise of such powers, the Tribunal is not permitted to deal with the issues in relation to which it has no jurisdiction to deal with. It is well established law that the tribunal constituted under a special statute cannot travel beyond the scope of powers given to it under the statute under which it is created.
18. In the matter of D. Ramakrishna Reddy and Ors. v. The Addl. Revenue Divisional Officers and Ors., , while dealing with the issue regarding the payment of compensation of standing trees or any other forest produce on the land vested in the State Government in terms of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act (1 of 1973), and considering the fact that there was no provision under the said Act or in the Rules made thereunder for payment of any such compensation and considering Section 15 of the Act which makes provision regarding the amount payable for any land vested in the Government under the said Act which is to be calculated at the rates specified in the second schedule to the Act as well as Section 16 makes provision regarding claims of amount payable which is to be determined by the Tribunal, and Rule 11 which incorporated the provision for fixation of the value for fruit bearing trees and structures, it was observed that:
“…….There being no provision in the Act or Rules for payment of any sum for the trees (other than fruit bearing trees) or any other forest produce on the vested land, no claim for compensation for the trees or other forest produce standing on the surplus land surrendered or deemed to have been surrendered arises under the provisions of the Act or the Rule. The tribunals are creature of the Act and it is not open to them to travel beyond the provisions of the statute. The High Court while examining the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the tribunal or any action taken by an officer under the Act is also to be guided by the provisions of the statute.”
19. In Shrisht Dhawan (Smt.) v. Shaw Brothers, , it was ruled that “No statutory authority or tribunal can assume jurisdiction in respect of subject matter which the statute does not confer on it and if by deciding erroneously the fact on which jurisdiction depends the court or tribunal exercises the jurisdiction then the order is vitiated. Error of jurisdictional fact renders the order ultra vires and bad.” Beside, the jurisdiction of such tribunal clearly depends upon the statutory provision in the statute under what the tribunal is created is also clear from the decision of the Apex Court in Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (deceased) through LRs. v. Jasjit Singh and Ors., wherein it was held that “Ranganath Mishra, J. as he then was, held that jurisdiction comes solely from the law of the land and cannot be exercised otherwise. In this country, jurisdiction can be exercised only when provided for either in the Constitution or in the laws made by the legislature. Jurisdiction is the authority or power of the court to deal with a matter and make an order carrying binding force in the facts. Oza, J. supplementing the question held that the jurisdiction to try a case could only be conferred by law enacted by the legislature. The Supreme Court could not confer jurisdiction if it does not exist in law.” It further ruled that “Thus this court laid down as an authoritative proposition of law that the jurisdiction could be conferred by statute and this Court cannot confer jurisdiction or an authority on a tribunal.” Similarly, in Raza Textiles Ltd. v. ITO, , it was held that a Court or Tribunal cannot confer jurisdiction on itself by deciding a jurisdictional fact wrongly.
20. One must hasten to say that this does not mean that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to satisfy itself about jurisdictional facts which would empower the Tribunal to entertain and deal with the appeal filed in the Tribunal. In fact, it is also well established that every tribunal of limited jurisdiction is not only entitled but bound to determine whether the matter in which it is asked to exercise its jurisdiction comes within the limits of its special jurisdiction and whether the jurisdiction of such Tribunal is dependent on the existence of certain facts or circumstances and the ruling of the Apex Court in that regard is very clear in Mohammed Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra, . It was held therein that it is obviously the duty of such tribunal to see that the facts and circumstances exist to invest the tribunal with jurisdiction, and where a tribunal derives its jurisdiction from the statute that creates it and that statute also defines the conditions under which the tribunal assumes jurisdiction in a matter, it must be satisfied that the conditions requisite for its acquiring seisin of that matter have in fact arisen. Being so, the Tribunal in question would be perfectly justified in verifying whether the College is affiliated or not but not to embark upon the inquiry as to whether the affiliation has been rightly obtained or granted or whether there is any procedural irregularity in grant of affiliation. Such an inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal while dealing with the appeal under Section 59 of the Universities Act.
21. The law being well settled on the point of limitation of jurisdiction of a tribunal specifically constituted under a special statute for specific purposes, and the Tribunal in question having been constituted under one such statute and was required to deal with the matters within the parameters of Section 59 read with 61 of the Universities Act, the issue regarding validity or legality or illegality and/or compliance or non-compliance of the procedural technicalities in course of obtaining the affiliation of college being totally foreign to such issues under Section 59 of the Universities Act, the tribunal has clearly acted in excess of its jurisdiction in dealing with the said issue and rejecting the appeals on the said ground.
22. Once it is apparent that the issue regarding legality of the affiliation was required to be dealt with by the specified authorities of the University in terms of the provisions of Section 91 of the Universities Act and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal being limited to the issues specified under Section 59 of the Universities Act, it was not permissible for the Tribunal to deal with such issue while considering the appeal under Section 59 at the instance of the employee of the affiliated college in relation to grievance of the alleged illegal termination of their services. What is further uncomprehensible is that in spite of the fact that the authorities under the NCTE Act had granted recognition to the college and the said fact was communicated to the University by a letter dated 21st August, 2002 and the same was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, yet the Tribunal proceeded to deal with the issue of legality or illegality of affiliation of the college.
23. The learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has drawn attention to the decision of a learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court in the matter of Amrith Educational and Cultural Society, Bangalore and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Anr., reported in AIR 1997 Karnataka 44. Therein, the petitioner-society had approached the High Court for issuance of the writ in the nature of mandamus to accord sanction/affiliation to the petitioner society for starting a new course of Bachelor of Education at Kolar. The petition was dismissed holding that sections 14 and 16 of the NCTE Act and the constitutional limitations made it clear that the institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education cannot be granted sanction/affiliation to University unless it secures recognition in terms of Section 14 of the NCTE Act. Placing reliance upon the said decision, it was sought to be contended that the mandate of Section 16 of the NCTE Act is that the University is not entitled to grant affiliation in the absence of recognition by the authorities under the NCTE Act. The said decision, however, is of no help in the case in hand for the reasons stated hereinbelow.
24. Section 16 of the NCTE Act provides that “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no examining body shall, on or after the appointed day; (a) grant affiliation whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution; or (b) hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a recognized institution, unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned, under Section 14 or permission for a course or training under Section 15.” There cannot be any dispute about the proposition of law, particularly in view of the provisions of law contained in Section 14 of the NCTE Act, that the recognition by the authorities under the NCTE Act has to precede the grant of affiliation in case of an institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education commenced on or after the appointed day. Undoubtedly, in terms of the notification dated 1st July, 1995 issued by the Central Government and published in the Government Gazette dated 10th July, 1995, the appointed day was the first day of July, 1995. In other words, the provisions of NCTE Act are applicable to the colleges from 1st July, 1995. Besides, Section 16 cannot be read ignoring the provisions of law contained in Section 17 thereof which specifically provide for the effect of contravention of provisions of the Act and consequences thereof. Sub-section (4) of Section 17 provides that “If an institution offers any course or training in teacher education after the coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition under subsection (1), or where an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purpose of employment under the Central Government any State Government or University or in any school, college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government.” In other words, the effect of failure to obtain recognition prior to grant of affiliation has been specified to be restricted to the denial of any benefit to the students who might obtained training in such colleges. It nowhere provides that mere failure to obtain recognition prior to grant of affiliation would result in termination of the affiliation or that it would render the affiliation to be illegal, even for the purpose of considering the issues pertaining to the service conditions of the employees specified under Section 59 of the Universities Act. It is one thing to say that failure to obtain recognition prior to grant of affiliation would result in rendering training to the students to be unrecognizable and it is another thing to say that it would affect rights of the employees which otherwise accrue to them in relation to their service conditions as well as a right assured to them to invite adjudication in relation to the disputes pertaining to the denial of such rights by the management of the institutions. Besides, the College in question was established in 1994 and since then it is affiliated to the University. In other words, the University affiliation to the College was obtained even before the NCTE Act came into force. Viewed from this angle therefore the decision of Karnataka High Court is of no help to the case in hand.
25. In any case, the records apparently disclose the recognition in the academic year 2002-03, and simultaneously, the affiliation granted by the University of Mumbai also continues. Undoubtedly, the termination of service was during the academic year 2001-02. However, undisputedly, the appeals were filed during the academic year 2002-03. The parties have no right to forum and they have to comply with the statute in force in that regard. When the appeal was filed, the recognition having been already granted for the academic year 2002-03, the affiliation having been continued at the time of filing the appeal in terms of Section 59 of the Universities Act, there was no scope for any grievance to contend that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the appeal.
26. For the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Mumbai University and College Tribunal cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the College Tribunal with direction to deal with the appeals on merits and in accordance with the provisions of law. Hence, the petition succeeds. The common judgment and order dated 31st October, 2002 passed by the Mumbai University and College Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 37 to 41 of 2002 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Mumbai University and College Tribunal to decide the appeals on merits and in accordance with the provisions of law, after hearing the parties. The rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs.
27. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 prays for stay to this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any justification for grant of stay to this order. Prayer is accordingly rejected.