Bombay High Court
Smt.Shraddha W/O Sharadrao ... vs State Of Maharashtra ... on 26 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp672.05 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 672 OF 2005
Smt. Sharda w/o Sharad Gawande,
aged about 47 years, occupation -
Lecturer in Home Economics,
B.S. Patil Mahavidyalaya,
Partwada, District - Amravati,
r/o 'Kshiteej', Shantiniketan Colony,
Court Road, Partwada, Dist. Amravati. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary to the
Government of Maharashtra,
Education and Employment
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032.
2. Director of Education (Higher
Education), Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune.
3. Amravati University,
through its Registrar,
Camp - Amravati.
4. The Principal,
Bhagwantrao Shivaji Patil College,
Partwada, District - Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri M.N. Hiwase, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
APRIL 28, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Nobody for the petitioner.
2. We have heard Mrs. Hiwase, learned AGP for
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Shri Kasat, learned counsel for
respondent No. 3.
3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader is
seeking adjournment. No reply has been filed on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. However, considering the facts at
hand, we have rejected that request.
4. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3305 of 2001
before this Court and it was disposed of on 06.02.2004 with a
direction to the State Government to reconsider the proposal
forwarded by the College as well as University for de-
reservation of the post held by the petitioner by applying
Government Resolution dated 25.01.1990. The decision was to
be taken within eight weeks. The petitioner thereafter filed
Contempt Petition No. 170 of 2004 and it was disposed of on
01.02.2005 by this Court observing that the State Government
was not directed to either allow the proposal or to reject it. In
Contempt petition, it was not in dispute that the State
Government considered that proposal and rejected it. It was
thereafter that present writ petition has been filed for directing
the State Government to de-reserve the post and to approve the
appointment of the petitioner made on that post from
13.09.1988, with all consequential benefits.
5. Respondent No. 3 - University has filed reply and in
that reply dated 11.04.2005, it is submitted that the petitioner
came to be appointed as a Lecturer in Home Economics against
a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate as Scheduled
Tribe candidate was not available. The appointment was made
only for one year. In subsequent academic years, though the
post was advertised for Scheduled Tribe candidates, no
Scheduled Tribe candidate became available and hence the
petitioner continued. Her appointment from time to time was
also approved by the University. In reply, it is further pointed
out that after directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3305
of 2001, proposal for de-reservation appeared to have been
rejected by the State Government. However, the fact of said
rejection was not communicated to the University by the State
Government.
6. Thus, material on record shows that from her initial
appointment as a Lecturer in Home Economics in September
1988, the petitioner has put in more than 27 years of service as
of date. It is not in dispute that Government Resolution dated
25.01.1990 envisages de-reservation in sixth year. Here, the
facts show that vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate
was duly advertised from 1988 every year and in the absence of
Scheduled Tribe candidate, the petitioner was selected and
appointed against that vacancy. Respondent No. 3 - University
did not find any fault with selection or appointment and hence
granted approval to her service. This position continued in any
case up to 2001 i.e. for more than 12 years.
7. A perusal of judgment dated 01.02.2001 delivered
by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1893 of 2000 shows that
there by following this Government Resolution, the position
that reserved post gets de-reserved after six years, has been
accepted and accordingly the State Government was directed to
issue necessary orders of de-reservation of the post held by that
petitioner. Similar orders are also passed in Writ Petition No.
2101 of 2000. At Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 1662 of 2002 on
10.06.2002, these orders have been followed.
8. The petitioner has in paragraph 4 of the petition
expressly pointed out these orders and in paragraph 5, it is
pleaded that Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 did not take any action for
de-reservation, though the petitioner continued in service for
over 17 years.
9. We, therefore, find that after expiry of period of six
years, the post got de-reserved. The services rendered by the
petitioner, therefore, needed to be approved accordingly.
10. Hence, we direct Respondent No. 1 to issue
consequential orders of de-reservation within a period of 12
weeks from the date of communication of this order to
Respondent No. 1. Thereafter Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 shall take
necessary consequential steps to determine the issues like
fixation of salary, increments etc.
11. This Court while issuing Rule in the matter on
19.04.2005, has already declared the petitioner entitled to all
benefits to which a regular Lecturer holding said post is
entitled, including benefit of placement in the cadre. If any
such benefits are released to the petitioner already, the same
shall be adjusted or taken note of while implementing this
order.
12. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed by making Rule
absolute in above terms. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
