IN THE MATTER OF PRELIMINARY

OBJECTION OF THE RESPONDENTS

NO.1-3 AS REGARDS THE

MAINTAINABILITY OF THE APPEAL

MAY IT PLEASE THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL:

The Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 above-named (hereinafter

referred to as the Respondents) beg to state and submit as under:

1) The Respondents state that the Application dated NIL of the

Appellant is untenable de jure and deserves to be rejected for the

following reasons which are given herein below without prejudice

to one another:

2) The Respondents state that the present Appeal filed by the

Appellant under Section 59 (1) of the Maharashtra Universities

Act, 1994 (herein after referred to as the Act) is in the matter of

challenge to the termination of the probationary services of the

Appellant vide letter dated _____________.

3) The Respondents state that the said Termination Order is

therefore inchoate and non-effective de jure as well as de facto

till the said date, i.e., _______________.

4) The Respondents state that since the said Order is inchoate and

has not yet come into effect, the services of the Appellant have
 2

as on date, not been terminated and therefore, the Respondents

respectfully and humbly beg to submit that no jurisdiction

under the Act accrues to this Honble Tribunal and no locus

whatsoever accrues to the Appellant to invoke Section 59 of the

Act.

5) The Respondents state that the present Appeal is therefore

premature and untenable in Law as well as on facts in as much

as no right to appeal at all accrues to the Appellant under

Section 59 (1) of the Act in as much as none of the ingredients

mentioned in the said Section are attracted in the present

Appeal.

6) The Respondents state that a plain reading of Section 59 (1) of

the Act will reveal that the said Section confers the right to

Appeal only in the case of the specific instances mentioned

therein. The Respondents rely upon the maxims of sententia

absoluta expositore non indiget and a verbis legis non est

recedendum, i.e., when the words of a Statute are clear and

unambiguous and admit of only one meaning, the same ought to

be given effect to, without calling into aid other principles of

interpretation. The Respondents therefore pray that Section 59

(1) may be read sensu stricto by this Honble Tribunal.

7) The Respondents therefore pray that in light of what has been

mentioned herein above, this Honble Tribunal may be pleased to

 3

reject the present Appeal filed by the Appellant in limini as the

same is premature, inchoate and untenable on the anvil of

Section 59 (1) of the Act.

FOR THE RESPONDENTS