JUDGMENT - SHRI F.I. REBELLO, J.:---The petitioners herein have challenged the order of the University and College Tribunal dated 30th August 1996. The said appeal was preferred by respondent No. 1 against the termination of her services with effect from 21st April 1996 by communication dated 16th March, 1996. 2.The petitioner is a College affiliated to the respondent No. 2. The petitioner No. 1 hold B.Sc. (Hons.) with Economics and M.Sc. with Economics. She secured 55% marks in Post Graduation Examination. There was a leave vacancy in the petitioner's college and she was initially appointed on 20th June, 1993 against the leave vacancy. The College thereafter invited applications for a full time post of lecturer in Business Economics open category. The petitioner applied for the same. The petitioner was duly interviewed by a duly constituted Selection Committee and was selected. She was appointed on probation with effect from 10th November 1993. The petitioner thereafter applied to the respondent No. 2 for approval of the appointment. The University by letter dated 26th May 1994 approved the appointment on temporary basis from 21st June 1993 to 20th April 1994. 3.It seems that the same post was again readvertised. The petitioner was issued another letter of appointment appointing her again on a purely temporary basis from 20th June 1994 to 20th April 1995. The consent for the appointment was also sought from respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 by their letter dated 11th September 1995 approved the appointment of the petitioner a full time lecturer from 20th June 1994 to 20th April 1995. In the year 1995-96 the petitioner was not appointed on the ground that there was a reduction in workload in the Economics Department. The petitioner contended that as the respondent No. 1 was the junior most lecturer she was not given any work. The respondent No. 1 represented to the University. On account of the representations received in the present case and several other cases in respect of the petitioner's College the University appointed a Fact Finding Committee. The Fact Finding Committee submitted its report to the Vice Chancellor. In so far as the respondent No. 1 is concerned, the Fact Finding Committee recommended that the respondent No. 1 could be accommodated if the recommendation in respect of the lecturers was followed. A letter thereafter was issued to respondent No. 1 on 16th March, 1996. The Fact Finding Committee submitted its report to the Vice Chancellor. In so far as the respondent No. 1 is concerned, the Fact Finding Committee recommended that the respondent No. 1 could be accommodated if the recommendation in respect of the lecturers was followed. A letter thereafter was issued to respondent No. 1 on 16th March, 1996. In the said letter it was pointed out that as per the University's directions the respondent No. 1 had been appointed from 13th December 1995 for the academic year 1995-96 on purely adhoc basis upto 20th April 1996 and after that the appointment stands terminated automatically. By an earlier communication of 23rd May 1995, the respondent No. 1 was informed that salary will be released only on getting the approval and salary grant from the Joint Director. It is against the communication dated 16th March 1996 that the appeal was preferred and which was allowed by the order dated 30th August 1996. In this writ petition apart from challenging the order it is sought to be contended that the number of subject in the College have fallen and consequently the number of division and there was no workload for respondent No. 1 and she had become surplus. The parties have filed their affidavits. On a perusal of the affidavits the Court felt that there was a need for further information as it was sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that the College of the petitioner was being discriminated by the respondent No. 2. By order dated 5th November, 1997 the Court called on the petitioners and the respondents to file additional affidavits on the following points : (1) In a case where a College applies for appointment of a teacher on probation and in the event such teacher on probation does not have the teaching qualification, what is the nature of appointment that is approved by the University. Quote the statute or circular in support thereof. (2) After the appointment is approved for a particular period and the post is readvertised and based on the readvertisement fresh appointment is made and application made in term of (a). In such an event is the teacher entitled to be considered to be regular if the teacher possesses the academic qualification other than the teaching qualification. The relevant statute and/or circular and/or resolution to that effect. In such an event is the teacher entitled to be considered to be regular if the teacher possesses the academic qualification other than the teaching qualification. The relevant statute and/or circular and/or resolution to that effect. (3) Whether the University in all such cases of teachers has uniformly taken such a stand wherever teachers are appointed pursuant to advertisements which showed the post as full time. Further does the University in all such cases consider all such teachers to be regular employees on their acquiring the additional qualification. Resolution, statute or circular be cited. (4) Any other relevant information in respect of regularising teachers or making them permanent in affiliated Colleges even though University had earlier approved their appointment only on temporary basis. (5) In so far as the workload is concerned, the detailed affidavit is to be filed by both by the respondent No. 2 as well as by the petitioners showing the number of teachers in the Economics Department with their date of appointment and their seniority and the number of approved posts. Also the workload available per year from 1992-1993 to 1996-1997. (6) Petitioners to show if they have transferred lecturers from one Department to another. If so, from which academic year. (7) Respondent No. 4 State of Maharashtra to file an affidavit showing the number of posts it has approved in the Economics Department of the respondent College and their respective years. Pursuant to this order affidavits have been filed furnishing necessary details as sought for. 5.On behalf of the respondent No. 4 affidavit has been filed by the Administrative Officer in the office of the Joint Director, Higher Education, Mumbai Region, Mumbai. By the said affidavit it is pointed out that in terms of the workload from the academic years 1992-93 to 1994-95 the Government has approved seven posts in Economics Department and two posts in Foundation Posts thus total nine posts. It is pointed that assessment for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97 is not yet complete. The Principal of the College has also filed an affidavit. In Annexture "A" to the said affidavit is given the workload and distribution of workload amongst teachers. From the workload and distribution of workload it is seen that there are seven teachers in the Economics Department and two in the Foundation Posts including the respondent No. 1. The Principal of the College has also filed an affidavit. In Annexture "A" to the said affidavit is given the workload and distribution of workload amongst teachers. From the workload and distribution of workload it is seen that there are seven teachers in the Economics Department and two in the Foundation Posts including the respondent No. 1. The workload from a number of 156 lectures for the Academic years 1995-96 have been declining and for the Academic year 1997-98 it is 132 lectures. The lectures presently are spread as under. Economics 78, Foundation Course 54, Total 132 lectures. 6.Mr. M.S. Kambli. I/c Registrar, University of Mumbai has also filed his affidavit furnishing details in respect of the nature of appointments. From a perusal of the affidavit of the University it is clear that in a case where a person is appointed against a regular vacancy by virtue of inviting applications through public advertisement and selection done by a duly selected Staff Selection Committee and if the candidate fulfills all the requirements the appointment is approved as on Probation. In the event the candidate does not fulfill the requirements of teaching qualifications approval is given on a temporary basis. Reliance is placed on Office Memorandum issued by the Government of Maharashtra dated 28th April 1994. By the said Memorandum the last date for continuance of teachers in employment who had not passed the National Eligibility Test is extended upto 31st March, 1996. This was an amendment to the earlier Memorandum as teachers with teaching qualifications as required were not available the State of Maharashtra by letter dated 28th April 1994 had permitted continuance of such teachers upto 31st March 1995. This as pointed out earlier was extended upto 31st March, 1996 and subsequently by another Office Memorandum of 1st March 1996 the date 31st March 1996 was itself withdrawn. The only requirement now is that in the event the teacher appointed did not pass NET/SET examination or the M. Phil examination by 31st December, 1993 or submit Ph.D. thesis by 13th December, 1993, all such appointment would be treated as temporary. It was however, made clear that though the appointments are of temporary nature their services cannot be terminated on the ground that he had not passed NET/SET examination but their annual increment would be stopped. It was however, made clear that though the appointments are of temporary nature their services cannot be terminated on the ground that he had not passed NET/SET examination but their annual increment would be stopped. 7.The University has also pointed in its affidavit that University has been taking an uniform stand in respect of all teachers who had not passed the NET/SET examination. The University has pointed out that it grants approval on temporary basis if at the time of appointment the teacher did not have the requisite teaching qualification. In the event the teacher acquires the qualification then in terms of University Circular No. Concol/VCD/116 dated 1st March, 1996 such teachers are treated to be eligible to be appointed on probation as per statute 418 whereafter confirmation/permanency follows according to the provisions of statute 418. 8.The statutes of the University also provide for the workload of teachers in affiliated colleges. In terms of statute 439-A the workload of full time lecturer in the multi-teacher Department is as under :--- "Minium 12 lectures maximum 17 lectures This is in terms of statute 439-A." There are other statutes pertaining to Head of Department, Office Members and Part-time lecturers. The University permits a maximum of 100 students at the time of entry in terms of Circular dated 3rd April, 1981. The University however for the last 2-3 years permits the affiliated Colleges to admit upto 120 students. To constitute a division there must be a minimum number of 60 students and as such even in the higher class though the restriction is of 100 students if there are less than 60 students they are divided amongst the other divisions. 9.With this background this petition can now be disposed off on merits. The petitioner admittedly at the time of appointment did not have the necessary teaching qualification for being appointed as a lecturer though she possessed the other academic qualifications. She has thereafter in May 1996 passed the said examination. In other words she became fully eligible to be appointed on probation in terms of Circular of the University. The petitioner admittedly at the time of appointment did not have the necessary teaching qualification for being appointed as a lecturer though she possessed the other academic qualifications. She has thereafter in May 1996 passed the said examination. In other words she became fully eligible to be appointed on probation in terms of Circular of the University. Under statute 418 of respondent No. 2 a teacher subject to the procedure prescribed for selection and appointment has to be appointed in the first instance on probation for a period not exceeding 24 months from the date on which such teacher, joins duty after which the teacher is to be confirmed and informed accordingly. In case her services are not confirmed the teacher is to be terminated provided that atleast one month notice is served on him prior to the expiry of the period of one month pay, Dearness Allowance and C.L.A. in lieu thereof is paid. What has been set out in para 4 of the affidavit dated 1st December 1997 filed by Shri M.S. Kambli, the respondent No. 1 like all other teachers similarly situated are to be treated as on probation as per the University Circular dated 1st March 1996 and are to be treated on probation as per statute 418 from the time of their first regular appointment. Regular appointment is when there is a regular post; it is advertised and selection is done by duly constituted Selection Committee. The University in such cases even where a teacher's appointment is treated on a temporary basis considers such appointment on probation on the teacher passing NET/SET examination as per Circular dated 1st March, 1996. In the instant case, therefore, the petitioner was regularly selected and letter of appointment issued to her on 10th November 1993. The University had approved the appointment in fact from June, 1993. The respondent No. 1, therefore, has completed two years of service and as such is deemed to be confirmed. The petitioners did not terminate the services of the respondent No. 1 on the ground of unsatisfactory performance. 10.The order of University College Tribunal will have to be now examined. The tribunal has proceeded on the footing that reduction in the workload had been gone into by a Fact Finding Committee and it would not be open and proper for the tribunal to examine the correctness of that report. 10.The order of University College Tribunal will have to be now examined. The tribunal has proceeded on the footing that reduction in the workload had been gone into by a Fact Finding Committee and it would not be open and proper for the tribunal to examine the correctness of that report. The tribunal clearly abdicated its function. It is true that ordinarily a Court/tribunal will not substitute such findings by its own finding on facts. However, the tribunal will have to give reasons as to why it is accepting the findings. Merely because the Fact Finding Committee was constituted by the University ipso facto would not mean that whatever findings are given by the Committee are to be accepted by the tribunal. Tribunal in such case when the findings are challenged would be clearly failing to exercise its jurisdiction. In the present case it has so done. It has given no reason as to why report of the Fact Finding Committee was accepted. However, for the reasons hereinafter to be given this aspect need not be gone into. 11.On behalf of the petitioner a large number of judgments have been cited. In (P. Sadagopan others v. Food Corporation of India, Zonal Officer (South Zone) represented by its Zonal Manager another)1, reported in 1997(3) Supreme Today 604, the Apex Court has reiterated the well known principle that in service law executive instructions cannot be issued in derogation of the statutory Regulations. In the case of (Ashok Kumar Sharma others v. Chander Shekhar another)2, reported in 1997(4) Supreme 320 the matter under consideration was the eligibility criteria of a person who applies pursuant to an advertisement. The Apex Court again has reiterated the principles that the application called for prescribing particular date as a last date of filing application, the eligibility of the candidate shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone. A person who acquired prescribed qualification subsequently to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. The next judgment relied upon is in the case of (Hindustan Education Society another v. S.K. Kaleem Sk. Gulam Nabi others)3, reported in A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2126. A person who acquired prescribed qualification subsequently to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. The next judgment relied upon is in the case of (Hindustan Education Society another v. S.K. Kaleem Sk. Gulam Nabi others)3, reported in A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2126. The Apex Court therein has observed that if appointment letter states that the appointment of a candidate is purely temporary for a period of 11 months, his appointment has to be taken as purely temporary for a limited period and his appointment cannot be considered to be a permanent appointment. In the case of (Kunwar Arun Kumar v. U.P. Hill Electronics Corporation Ltd. others)4, reported in 1997(1) Supreme 187 , the Apex Court has held that if services of an employees are terminated during probationary period such a termination could not be held to cast a stigma. In (Akbar Peerbhoy College others v. Pramila N. Kutty others)5, reported in 1998(1) Bom.C.R. 1 a Single Judge of this Court was considering the provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. In (Chikitsak Smuha S.S. L.S. Patkar College, Goregaon others v. Bilquis Wahab Quraishi others)6, reported in 1994(II) C.L.R. 209, a Division Bench of this Court held that if a lecturer did not possess a qualification required under G.R. dated 25th October, 1977 and appointed as temporary and the appointment was not approved by the University, it could not be said that the action of the University was wrong as a provision to acquire requisite qualification is an enabling provision and cannot be used to claim permanent post if such teachers did not acquire those qualification during extended period. 12.It is not necessary to deal with the various judgments on the facts of the present case except to consider the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chikitsak Smuha S.S. L.S. Patkar College (supra). On the admitted facts the petitioner possessed academic qualification except the teaching qualification. It was clear vacancy. The post was advertised. There was a Committee duly constituted. The respondent No. 1 was selected and in fact the petitioner was appointed on probation. It was the University in terms of its statutes/Circulars which did not agree to the appointment of the respondent No. 1 on probation but on temporary basis. It was clear vacancy. The post was advertised. There was a Committee duly constituted. The respondent No. 1 was selected and in fact the petitioner was appointed on probation. It was the University in terms of its statutes/Circulars which did not agree to the appointment of the respondent No. 1 on probation but on temporary basis. In the instant case the respondent No. 4 has issued a Circular dated 1st March 1996 in supersession of its earlier Circular whereby a teacher had to acquire teaching qualification upto 31st March 1996. By the Memorandum of 1st March 1996 the Vice Chancellor of the respondent No. 2 in exercise of the powers contained in Maharashtra University Act, 1994 (4)(7) (sic) and as per delegated vide power 14 has stated that date for passing examination 31st March, 1996 is withdrawn. In other words the requirement of passing NET/SET examination of teachers who were appointed at the relevant time of this Circular, their services are not to be terminated. All that happens is in the event they did not acquire qualification their annual increment would be stopped. In other words in so far as the teaching qualification is required a teacher can be regularly appointed against the post of lecturer but regularisation thereafter would depend on passing NET/SET examination. As such the appointment of respondent No. 1 cannot be faulted and has to be treated as regular on her passing NET/SET examination from initial date of appointment as on probation and on completion of two years she is deemed to be confirmed. The contention on behalf of the management therefore claiming reliance on the judgment that as the teacher did not have the qualification her appointment could not have been validly made cannot be applied on the facts and circumstances of this case. The mere fact that the appointment of the teacher was described as temporary adhoc also will be no answer if the teacher in fact otherwise had the qualification and the appointment was against a clear vacancy after following the procedure including advertisement and selection by duly constituted Staff Selection Committee. 13.The only question that has to be now considered is as to whether the contention of the petitioner that there is a fall in the division and consequently the petitioner has become surplus has any merits. 13.The only question that has to be now considered is as to whether the contention of the petitioner that there is a fall in the division and consequently the petitioner has become surplus has any merits. The Principal of the College has filed an affidavit wherein it is pointed out that there is short fall of division and consequently lectures. The University in its affidavit has pointed out that a workload for a teacher is maximum 17 lectures and minimum 12 lectures per week. In terms of the workload as shown by the Principal of the petitioner College the number of lectures are 132. The respondent No. 4 has approved seven posts in Economics and two posts for Foundation Posts. If minimum of 12 lectures is considered then requirement is 108 lectures. If the maximum of 17 lectures is considered it would be 153 lectures. In the Foundation Course what can be seen is that there are 54 lectures. That would leave 78 lectures in the Economic Departments. If the minimum of 12 lectures is taken that would be 84 lectures. If the maximum of 17 lectures is taken it would be 119 lectures. The University has also pointed out that in terms of statute 439-E a teaching post in the College shall not be abolished on its workload being reduced unless a proposal in that behalf is approved by the University. In the instant case there are seven posts of lecturers in the Economics Department and two posts in the Foundation Course. The College therefore suo moto cannot abolish a post or decrease the workload. It would have to seek the permission of the University. Furthermore teachers from the Economics Department can take lectures in the Foundation Course if they are otherwise eligible. In these circumstances therefore the petitioners suo moto cannot contend that as the workload has decreased the respondent No. 1 has become surplus. It is the University that would have to deal with the same. 14.In fact it is now the policy of the University that in case a teacher who is permanent becomes surplus such a teacher cannot be terminated but has to be absorbed in some other affiliated College. In light of the discussion the following directions are given :-- (1) The order of the tribunal is confirmed for reasons as set out in this judgment. In light of the discussion the following directions are given :-- (1) The order of the tribunal is confirmed for reasons as set out in this judgment. (2) The petitioners cannot abolish the post and/or reduce the workload without prior sanction of the University in terms of statute 439-E. Petitioners to forward the information regarding the respondent No. 1 to the University. The University to thereafter consider the workload and accordingly issue the necessary directions. (3) In view of the prevailing policy that services of permanent teachers should not be terminated and those rendered surplus are to be absorbed in other affiliated college, in the event respondent No. 1 is found to be surplus respondent No. 1 to be continued on the rolls of the petitioner and paid salary in terms of the policy until she is absorbed in some other College. 15.In view of the above writ petition stands disposed off. Rule in terms of the directions. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. *****