1 wp4458.13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4458/2013
Kishor Sudhakar Wankhede,
aged about 40 years, r/o Laxmi Vihar
Colony, Kulkarni Layout, Akola Road,
Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim, 444 403. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. Shri Motiramji Thakare Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal, Kasola, through
its Secretary, At Kasola, Tq. Mangrulpir,
Dist. Washim.
2. Yashwantrao Chavan Arts & Science
Mahavidyalaya, Mangrulpir, through
its Principal, Mangrulpir, Dist.
Washim-444 403.
3. Assistant Commissioner (Backward Class
Cell), Amravati Division, Amravati.
4. Joint director of Higher Education,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
5. Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University,
Amravati, through its Registrar,
Amravati - 444 602. ...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sachin Khandekar, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri S. Ghatole, Advocate holding for Shri F. T. Mirza, Advocate for
respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Shri V. A. Thakare, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED :-
MARCH 20, 2017 ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2017 01:00:01 ::: 2 wp4458.13.odt ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : V. M. Dshpande, J.)
1. Heard Shri Sachin Khandekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri V.A.Thakare, the learned Asstt. Government Pleader and Shri S. Ghatole, Advocate holding for Shri F. T. Miza, The learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 3 and 4. None appears for the respondent no.5-Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, though served.
2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the action on the part of the respondent no.3 in disapproving the appointment of the petitioner after a lapse of 14 years of his appointment, on the ground that at the time of making the appointment, the roster point was not adhered to. The petitioner is also challenging the communication dated 10.06.2013, which is addressed to the respondent no.2, which states that proper selection process was not followed while granting appointment to the petitioner as full time lecturer from part time lecturer.
::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2017 01:00:01 :::
3 wp4458.13.odt
3. Much of the facts in the present petition are not in dispute. On 24.08.1998, after obtaining approval and nod from the respondent no.5-University, the respondent no.2 published an advertisement for filling the post of Lecturer in various subjects on the part time basis.
4. Admittedly, duly constituted selection committee conducted the interview of the petitioner who applied for the said post in pursuance of the said advertisement issued by the respondent no.2. The selection committee selected the petitioner as part time lecturer in Mathematics. What is worth to note is that the selection committee for making the appointments on posts of part time as well as full time lecturers is one and the same.
5. On 13.03.1999, the appointment of the petitioner was duly approved by the respondent no.5-University.
In the meantime, in view of increase in the strength of the students, the post of part time lecturer in the Mathematics was upgradaded to that of full time lecturer. It is worth to mention here that there is a Government Resolution dated 08.08.1996 which provides that if a person is appointed as part time lecturer ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2017 01:00:01 ::: 4 wp4458.13.odt after following the due procedure, he could be accommodated as full time lecturer and for that no fresh selection process is required to be undertaken.
6. In view of the said Government Resolution, the petitioner was appointed as full time lecturer on 01.07.1999. The necessary approval to the petitioner's appointment as full time lecturer in Mathematics was granted by the respondent no.5 on 01.09.1999. From 1999 till the impugned communication, at no point of time the University or other respondents raised any grievance that at the time of initial appointment of the petitioner, roster point was not followed by the management.
7. This Court had, on 23.06.2014, granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner is continuously working as full time lecturer in Mathematics in the respondent no.2-College. It is not the case either of the management or of the university that the petitioner is lacking basic educational qualification. It is further not the case of the management that the petitioner has not discharged his duties to the satisfaction of the management.
::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2017 01:00:01 :::
5 wp4458.13.odt
8. Looking to the fact that the petitioner has rendered more than 15 years of service, it will be too harsh on the part of the respondents to disapprove his appointment on the ground that at the time of his initial appointment as full time lecturer, roster point was not considered by the management.
9. It is to be noted that while granting approval as full time lecturer in the year 1999, it was not the case of any of the respondents that there was a backlog in the respondent no.2- College. Had there been a backlog, the respondent no.4 ought not to have granted approval in favour of the petitioner.
10. In that view of the matter, the present petition needs to be allowed. Accordingly, rule is made absolute in terms of the prayer clauses (A) and (B). There shall be no order as to costs.
(V. M. Deshpande, J.) (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.) kahale ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2017 01:00:01 :::