JUDGMENT - K. SUKUMARAN, J.:---Tirpude College of Social Work and its Principal challenge the order of the College Tribunal passed on 15-3-1986 in an appeal preferred under section 42(B)(1) of the Nagpur University Act, 1974 by the second respondent, in Writ Petition No. 745/86. The College Tribunal held that the order of termination of services passed by the Management on 18-10-1985 was illegal, improper, unjustified and invalid. Consequently, a direction was made to treat her as a Lecturer with a right to back wages with effect from 18-10-1985. 2. The second respondent has a glittering educational career. That she was the first woman who had a doctorate in social work from the Nagpur University and carried a gold medal in 1983 for the best original research from the Indian Society of Criminology, would make it unnecessary to narrate her antecedent achievements in the academic field. She had her graduation in 1969, B.Ed. degree in 1971, post graduate qualification in Social Work in 1980 and post graduate degree in Sociology in 1981. 3. The Tribunal has found as a fact, and we agree with it, that she had been appointed on 4-8-1981. She joined service on 5-8-1981. She continued as such in that post. Later, the College issued an advertisement on 25-8-1983 for the post of Lecturer in Social Work in the scale of Rs. 700-1600/-. Though she applied, the further steps were not continued for a final appointment. The injustice arising out of the situation was brought to the notice of various Authorities. The Vice-Chancellor of the University called for the remarks of the Principal by letter dated 5-3-1984. The Principal did not show either a due courtesy or the needed discipline, to send his remarks. The University referred the case to the Grievance Committee on 21-9-1984. 4. She sought to ventilate her grievances through the Authorities of the Education Department. A communication was sent on 4-1-1985 to the Deputy Director of Social Welfare. That Authority did not choose to send any reply whatsoever. 5. The College again advertised for the post on 22-5-1985. She repeated her application. In the mean while, the Grievance Committee submitted its report. The Executive Council considered the same at its meeting on 2nd, 3rd and 4th July, 1985. It submitted certain recommendations thereon. The College was given certain directions. The compliance was to be reported to the Council. 5. The College again advertised for the post on 22-5-1985. She repeated her application. In the mean while, the Grievance Committee submitted its report. The Executive Council considered the same at its meeting on 2nd, 3rd and 4th July, 1985. It submitted certain recommendations thereon. The College was given certain directions. The compliance was to be reported to the Council. She was informed about these events by a communication dated 22-8-1985. 6. The College thereafter took a dirty stand. A charge-sheet was served on her on 2-9-1985. There were as many as 11 charges. It is sufficient to note that the disciplinary proceedings were not pursued by the College later. In the light of the subsequent events, it is difficult to assume that it was out of good motives that the disciplinary proceedings were abandoned. It is not necessary to probe into the motivation further, in the light of the subsequent events. An interview took place on 19-9-1985. The Interview Committee, according to her, was a biassed and prejudiced one. She was the sole doctorate holder, with qualification for teaching classes in Parts I and II of the Master Degree for Social Work. It is not necessary to detail her woes in the judgment. They have been chronologically given in great detail in the judgment of the Tribunal. It is sufficient now to note that the Selection Committee excluded the second respondent and selected four others. We are satisfied that the long list of specific and clear instances of harassment bring out the petitioner in very unfavourable colours, to put it most milaly. The incidents of harassment would have ordinarily driven even a tough person to almost a condition of paper-pulp. Presumably, a courage of conviction, tenacity in purposeful action and the unswerving faith in a future success, made her carry the very many crosses placed on her head with great composure. 7. The adverse decision of the Committee was appealed against before the College Tribunal. She moved this Court by Writ Petition No. 277/86 for an early disposal of the appeal. That was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 19-2-1986. The Tribunal has indicated the facts which emerge from the documents and evidence produced before it. Issues (a) to (j) for consideration and findings thereafter were formulated. The findings of the Tribunal were declared as against each one of the above issues. That was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 19-2-1986. The Tribunal has indicated the facts which emerge from the documents and evidence produced before it. Issues (a) to (j) for consideration and findings thereafter were formulated. The findings of the Tribunal were declared as against each one of the above issues. The Tribunal made certain observations towards the conclusion of its order. The ultimate conclusions were : (i) The appellant was a highly qualified Lecturer; (ii) She was a victim of the allurement of the respondent No. 2; (iii) The Management omitted to make the necessary request to the University for creation of a post of Junior Lecturer, though obliged to do so under the relevant Government orders; (iv) She had a rightful claim on the post she was occupying; (v) The Management had not obtained permission for abolition of the post or termination of her services from the University or the Directorate of Social Welfare; (vi) Only during the year 1984, did the Management issue an order modifying the appointment as one "until further orders"; (vii) She was entitled to confirmation when she completed more than two years' service; (viii) She was singled out, for changing the character of her appointment as one `continuing until further orders;' (ix) The Management had not sought or got permission from the University or the Directorate of Social Welfare for abolition of the post of Lecturer; (x) Government was paying the grant-in-aid for the post from the year 1981; (xi) She had a rightful claim to the post she was occupying and the decision of the Management to abolish the post without permission of the University was unjustified; (xii) The termination of her services from 18-10-1985 was improper and illegal. 8. We have considered the contentions raised in the writ petition. The massive records also have been perused by us. The arguments which were started on 23rd March, 1992, had been continued on 24th. The proceedings of those days could be better extracted in this context. "The pursis has been filed by the Secretary, Yugantar Education Society who appeared in person today. Hearing of the case started on 23-3-1992. It was shown as very first item in the list of the cases to be heard. Counsel appearing for the Principal, Tirpude College of Social Work, Nagpur, was not present at that time. The hearing of the case spilled over to 24th. Hearing of the case started on 23-3-1992. It was shown as very first item in the list of the cases to be heard. Counsel appearing for the Principal, Tirpude College of Social Work, Nagpur, was not present at that time. The hearing of the case spilled over to 24th. Learned Counsel appeared at that time and complained about alleged priority given for hearing of the case. He was apparently mistaken in relation to that submission. The Weekly Board clearly indicated that this item is to be heard as Item No. 1. Thereafter, on a plea that he was engaged in another Court, he withdrew from the case and absented from the case. This was not in tune and tradition of the members of the profession. Priority has necessarily to be given for the matter, which is in the First Court of the Bench of this Court. Even otherwise, when the matter was part heard, it was necessary for any Counsel, little known as a Senior Counsel, to have sought indulgence or permission from the other Court so as to enable him to discharge his professional duty towards the client in respect of the part heard matter. The duties are further heightened by the fact that the writ petition is of the year 1986. We regret about the conduct of such Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Vice Principal of the College. We record our unhappiness about the situation. This morning when the matter was taken up, Mrs. Deshpande appearing on behalf of Shri P.G. Palshikar, Counsel for the petitioners, sought time till afternoon today. We granted the request. It was thereafter that the present pursis has been filed by the party in person. The facts speak for themselves. We restrain ourselves from commenting further on the conduct of the Counsel. We communicated to the party that he will be free to argue the case. However, he wanted some further time. We have indicated our disinclination to grant further time in the circumstances. However, in view of the repeated requests made in this behalf that he would argue the case at 10.30 a.m. on 26-3-1992, we adjourn hearing of the case to 10.30 a.m. on 26-3-1992." It is regrettable that Counsel who was appearing for the writ petitioners, conducted himself in the manner indicated above. Without a slightest justification, he declined services to the clients and assistance to the Court. Without a slightest justification, he declined services to the clients and assistance to the Court. We exercise extreme restraint in our further action, only in the larger interests of the tradition and reputation of this Court. 9. The recalcitrant attitude of Counsel and the disappearance of the Principal, who agreed to personally argue the matter on 26-3-1992, only heightened our responsibility to scrutinise the contentions and peruse the massive records as they are. 10. The facts narrated by the Tribunal clearly make out that out of mala fide intentions, the petitioners had attempted to manipulate the matters with a view to harass a highly qualified academic. The findings of facts are supported by the massive materials available in the case. In particular, we have to emphasise the fact that under the Government Resolution dated 12-12-1981, the College was obliged to implement the directives contained therein. One such directive was to maintain a ratio of 1:10 between the Head of the Department and the Lecturers. Yet another significant directive was to designate persons working under different denominations, who essentially are answering the description of the duties of Lecturers, as Lecturers themselves. The Colleges had no option in the matter. They were to comply with the directions and report such compliance. A deliberate default on the part of the petitioner College and its Principal, would not help them to come out of the consequences of the Government order. What under the binding Government orders should be done, should be treated to have been done. If that be the position, the respondent No. 2 would be entitled to be treated as a Lecturer from 5-8-1981. It would then follow that after two years of service, she will be treated as confirmed-that is the effect of the rule. Thereafter, her service could be altered only in a manner known to law. Disciplinary proceedings, if properly initiated, can shake her position. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Management in the present case. They were conceived of with an illegitimate motivation. The efforts were aborted as could be reasonably expected. The petitioners themselves dropped the proceedings like a hot potato and withdrew from that illegitimate exercise. In such a situation, second respondent's position as a confirmed Lecturer in the appropriate scale of Rs. 700-1600/-, as provided by the University at the relevant time, would have to be only accepted and affirmed. The efforts were aborted as could be reasonably expected. The petitioners themselves dropped the proceedings like a hot potato and withdrew from that illegitimate exercise. In such a situation, second respondent's position as a confirmed Lecturer in the appropriate scale of Rs. 700-1600/-, as provided by the University at the relevant time, would have to be only accepted and affirmed. That is what the Tribunal did. That again is justified on the basis of the records and strength of the statutory rules and Government Resolutions. There is hardly any circumstance whatsoever to doubt or disturb the correctness of that finding or disturb the conclusion of the Tribunal ultimately reached. Only one clarification, as claimed by her in her writ petition, need be made. 11. The attempt at altering the character of her confirmed appointment, as done by the Management belatedly, is an action in despair, which did not have any efficacy in law or fact. Equally futile and barren was the further action in attempting an abolition of the post. The teaching community is insulated against such arbitrary action at the hands of such Managements. The sanction of the University and the Directorate of Social Welfare are the pre-conditions for effecting such drastic action against a teaching member. There was no such sanction. That again is the finding of the Tribunal. That finding is fully justified in the case. 12. Then comes the subsequent manipulations in relation to termination of her services on 18-10-1985. The massive materials, which cry loudly about the illegal actions on the part of the Management, have been elaborately discussed by the Tribunal. They are clearly borne out by the materials on record. As we noted earlier, it was not a case of some vague allegations against the Management or some baseless accusations. All of them had a contemporaneous projection and the effectiveness of factual accuracy. We have no doubt in our mind that the entire action of the Management was conceived mala fide, executed illegally and attempted to be sustained savagely. The invalidation of that order by the Tribunal, was supremely justified. The attack against the same is devoid of any force or life. The contentions lack substance, in all aspects. The writ petition is, therefore, bound to fail. We accordingly dismiss it. The second respondent should be compensated, at least partly, by the petitioners, for the decade and odd harassment continuously practised against her. The attack against the same is devoid of any force or life. The contentions lack substance, in all aspects. The writ petition is, therefore, bound to fail. We accordingly dismiss it. The second respondent should be compensated, at least partly, by the petitioners, for the decade and odd harassment continuously practised against her. We direct the Management to pay her the entirety of her costs, including Counsel's fee in the sum of rupees five thousand. 13. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1896/87 is the second respondent in Writ Petition No. 745/86. It is unnecessary to refer to all the details of her service or the controversies that have arisen between the Management and herself as they have been already dealt with and disposed of in the preceding portion of the judgment. The prayer in this writ petition is of a limited character. It is to pay her salary in the scale of Rs. 700-1600/- along with arrears from August 1981. Other subsequent prayers like implementation of the decisions of the Executive Council, College Tribunal and of the University are also there. Inasmuch as we have dismissed the Management's Writ Petition No. 745/86, those directives will have necessarily to be implemented and that too, immediately. We direct the respondents 1 and 2 to implement those directives forthwith. The compliance shall be reported to this Court within two weeks from today. The respondents 3 and 4 shall ensure that this direction is punctually observed by respondents 1 and 2. In case, respondents 1 and 2 are found defaulting, the respondents 3 and 4 shall take all such steps as are permissible under the Act, including the process of disaffiliation of the College, if need be. If disaffiliation creates difficulties for the public and the students, it will be open to University to take over the management of the College direct. There is no reason why respondents 3 and 4 should develop cold feet in discharging their basic duty under the Act. The State also should ensure that its aid and assistance is given to the University and the Director for enforcing the decisions of the University and this Court. There should not be any impression left in the mind of petitioner or for that matter, anybody either in the academic community or general public, that the State is conniving at the illegitimate activities of the Management. 14. There should not be any impression left in the mind of petitioner or for that matter, anybody either in the academic community or general public, that the State is conniving at the illegitimate activities of the Management. 14. We have already found that the Management was bound to comply with the general Resolution in the matter of redesignation of the persons serving it and to report compliance thereof to the University Authorities. The benefits due to the petitioner, under the aforesaid redesignation scheme, cannot be withheld for the only reason that out of a spiteful motive, the Management had been continuously harassing the petitioner herein. We note that the petitioner had been compelled to move this Court for disbursement of the salary, during the pendency of the writ petition. Only by order dated 11-4-1989, Civil Application No. 1043/89 was disposed of directing disbursement of the salary from November 1988 to February 1989. The petitioner's prayer for disbursement of salary, treating her as a Lecturer in the grade of Rs. 700-1600/-, from 1981 and granting all further consequential benefits, is allowed and the relief shall be given to her immediately. 15. Writ Petition No. 2039/90 was filed by the second respondent in Writ Petition No. 745/86, against the harassment of the very same Management. It related to grant of lien to the petitioner herein, during the period of her Research Associateship. By interim order dated 30-8-1990, the petitioner was allowed to join the Post-Graduate Department of Law under the University Grants Commission as Research Associate. This was later modified by order dated 5-9-1990, the modification being essentially to the effect that she will not claim salary and other allowances from the Management during her assignment of Research Associateship. The period of Research Associateship will be over very shortly. We do not find any reason for denying the petitioner the benefits of University Grants Commission for Research Associateship, which she was richly deserving. It is only just and proper that in such circumstances, the lien which she had in the College, is continued. No reasonable Authority could decline the request to the petitioner under the circumstances. The order dated 8-8-1990 which declined such a request, has only to be quashed. We do so. The petitioner herein will be permitted to retain the lien on the post of Lecturer in the College of the respondents 1 and 2, as prayed for. 16. No reasonable Authority could decline the request to the petitioner under the circumstances. The order dated 8-8-1990 which declined such a request, has only to be quashed. We do so. The petitioner herein will be permitted to retain the lien on the post of Lecturer in the College of the respondents 1 and 2, as prayed for. 16. While disposing of Writ Petition No. 745/86, we have awarded costs of rupees five thousand. In that view of the matter, we do not award separate costs in Writ Petitions Nos. 1896/87 and 2039/90. 17. In the result, the three writ petitions are disposed of in the manner indicated above. Order accordingly. -----