Bombay High Court
Anil Dadaji Satpute vs State Of Maha.Higher & Technical ... on 26 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp90.05 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 90 OF 2005
Anil s/o Dodaji Satpute
aged 40 years,
occupation - Service,
r/o Kedar Layout, Deoli,
District - Wardha. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Joint Director of Higher
Education, Nagpur Division,
Old Morris College Premises,
Nagpur.
3. The Principal,
S.S.N.J. College, Deoli,
District - Wardha. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. M.N. Hiwase, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
APRIL 26, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Heard Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mrs. Hiwase, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1
& 2. Nobody appears for respondent No. 3 - employer of the
petitioner.
2. It is to be noted that this Court has issued Rule in
the matter on 21.03.2005 and on that day Shri Bhangde,
learned counsel had appeared for respondent No. 3. Thereafter,
the office endorsement dated 16.01.2008 shows that
Respondent No. 3 has been served on merits i.e. after issuance
of Rule but it has chosen not to appear and contest the matter.
3. After hearing the petitioner as also the learned AGP,
we find that the petitioner was initially terminated and was
reinstated back by the College Tribunal in Appeal No. N-6/1998
on 09.07.1998. Thereafter he was sought to be relieved on the
ground that because of reduction in strength of students, 2
Library Attendants were not required. The Joint Director of
Higher Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur (Respondent No. 2)
had issued an order on 23.12.2004 and directed the Principal,
Suwalal Patni Arts and Commerce College, Pulgaon, District -
Wardha, to absorb the petitioner and consequently on
08.01.2005, Respondent No. 3 relieved the petitioner.
4. This Court on 17.01.2005 issued notice in the
petition and stayed the order of absorption and also relieving.
With the result, the petitioner continues to work as Library
Attendant in Respondent No. 3 - College.
5.
Our attention has been drawn to certain Annexures
where there is a discussion about number of students available
with Respondent No. 3. It appears that according to
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, the need of the post of Library
Attendant can be ascertained only after verifying strength of the
students.
6. We are pointing out these facts only to indicate that
the need of Library Attendant at Pulgaon College on
23.12.2004 may not survive now due to passage of time or then
due to change in number of students. Similarly, number of
students in Respondent No. 3 - College may also have
undergone change. It may have increased or decreased.
Hence, the material on the basis of which the petitioner was
found surplus in December 2004, is not valid at this stage to
find out whether he can still be declared surplus and whether
the College at Pulgaon can be called upon to obey directions
contained in the communication dated 23.12.2004.
7. It is apparent that when on account of interim
orders the petitioner has continued almost for a period of 11
years with Respondent No. 3 only, the situation prevailing
today needs to be looked into.
8. Hence, we find that due to passage of time, the
order dated 23.12.2004 at Annexure - D-1 and relieving order
dated 08.01.2005 at Annexure - 'E' cannot be used against the
petitioner. The said orders are accordingly quashed and set
aside.
9. It is always open to the respondents to find out the
need of staff every year while working out staff justification and
to pass appropriate consequential orders. It is, therefore, not
necessary for this Court to make any comments on this.
10. We accordingly partly allow the present petition.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. However, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
