Bombay High Court
Ananta Vishwanath Dhotre And ... vs The Registrar Maharashtra Animal ... on 13 July, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
7278.2016WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7278 OF 2016
1. Ananta s/o Vishwanath Dhotre,
Age: 34 years, Occu. Service as
Assistant Professor, Dairy Engineering
2. Nitin s/o Wamanrao Shinde
Age: 36 years, Occu. Service as
Assistant Manager (Quality Control),
Both C/o. College of Dairy Technology,
Warood, At present R/o.Aurangabad,
Tq. Dist. Aurangabad. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
The Registrar,
Maharashtra Animal and Fisheries
Science University,
Phutala Lake Road, Nagpur,
Dist. Nagpur - 400 001. RESPONDENT
...
Mr.Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Mr.P.G.Rodge, Advocate for Respondent / Sole.
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
V.K.JADHAV,JJ.
Reserved on : 12.07.2016
Pronounced on : 13.07.2016
7278.2016WP.odt
JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):
1. This Petition is filed with the
following prayers:
(B) By issuing writ of certiorari or any
appropriate writ, order or
directions in the like nature, to
quash and set aside the impugned
resolution No.32 and 33 of 2016
passed by the respondent -
University, by which it has been
resoled, not to issue 'No Objection
Certificate' to the academic officer
/ staff of the university seeking
admission to the Ph.D. course
outside the respondent university
for academic year 2016-2017.
(C) By issuing writ of mandamus or any
appropriate writ, order or
directions, the respondent be
directed to issue "No Objection
Certificate" in favour of
petitioners along with consequential
relieving order, so also conferring
the necessary consequential service
benefits to the petitioners, forth
7278.2016WP.odt
with, enabling the petitioners to
join and participate in the
counseling, which would be held on
14/07/2016 at "National Dairy
Research Institute Karnal",
(Haryana), and for that purpose
necessary directions be issued.
2. The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the respondent
University was not justified while passing
the impugned Resolution Nos.32/2016 and
33/2016, thereby resolving not to issue "No
Objection Certificate" to the petitioners
seeking admission to Ph.D. Degree Course,
outside the respondent University, while
ignoring the fact that, the petitioners are
allowed to appear for the examination and
their applications are duly recommended by
the Association Dean and further Resolution
by the Academic Council recommending the NOC
in favour of the petitioners. It is further
submitted that it is not open for the
7278.2016WP.odt
respondent University to assign the reason of
inadequate staff, while refusing to grant
NOC, admittedly when the petitioners were
permitted to appear for examination and the
Academic Council of University has
recommended to issue the same, as such the
impugned Resolution is in utter defiance of
the principle of estoppels and doctrine of
legitimate expectations.
3. The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners invited our attention to the
pleadings in the Petition and the various
documents placed on record and submits that
once the recommendation is given by the
Association Dean and there is further
recommending the NOC in favour of the
petitioners, the respondent University should
have issued NOC. He submits that the
petitioners have satisfied the condition of
completion of probation vis-a-vis rendering
five years continuous service, the
7278.2016WP.odt
petitioners ought to have been issued study
leave, sanctioning order and relieving order,
however, the same has been declined by the
respondent University solely on the ground of
paucity of staff. It is submitted that the
paucity of staff cannot be a reason to deny
the opportunity to the petitioners to
prosecute higher studies, more so when the
petitioners have appeared for the examination
with prior permission of the University and
also secured 4th and 5th rank in the order of
merit. It is submitted that though the
petitioners are serving and the respondent is
situated within the territorial jurisdiction
of the Bombay High Court Bench at Nagpur, one
of the petitioners is resident of Aurangabad.
In support of their contention that the writ
can be issued to any authority located within
State of Maharashtra, the learned counsel for
the petitioner placed reliance on the
reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the
7278.2016WP.odt
case of Khajoor Singh Vs. Union of India1.
Therefore, he submits that the Petition
deserves to be allowed.
4. The learned counsel for the
petitioner relying upon the judgment in the
case of Dr.Suresh Samadhan Ghoke Vs.
Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences
Univesrity (Writ Petition No.6432/2014 with
Writ Petition No.6433/2014, decided on
01.08.2014) and submits that in similar facts
situation, the Division Bench of the Bombay
High Court Bench at Aurangabad has allowed
the Petition.
5. On the other hand, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent relying
upon the averments in the affidavit-in-reply
and annexures thereto made following
submissions.
6. He submits that the petitioners are
1 1961 AIR (SC) 532
7278.2016WP.odt
in service in the College of Dairy
Technology, Warood, District Nagpur and the
Resolution Nos.32/2016 and 33/2016 impugned
in this Petition is passed by the Academic
Council for the respondent University, which
is situated at Nagpur. Therefore, the
Petition ought to have been filed at the
Bombay High Court Bench at Nagpur and
therefore on this ground alone, the Petition
deserves to be rejected.
7. The Academic Council is necessary
party, however, the petitioners have not
added the Academic Council as party
respondent. Merely because the petitioners
are permitted to appear for the examination
would not accrue any right in their favour so
as to issue no objection certificate. The
accreditation of the respondent University
has been made by the ICAR in the year 2010
and thereafter, after 5 years the
accreditation of the respondent University
7278.2016WP.odt
will have to be made by the ICAR in this
year. There is shortage of Academic Officers
(teaching staff) and also Academic staff in
the respondent University and if all the
standards of teaching and academic standard
with the help of available Academic Officers
(teaching staff) and other academic staff are
maintained in the University in that case
only the ICAR used to grant accreditation.
It is submitted that the recent accreditation
of four Agricultural Universities in the
State has been put on hold by the
Accreditation Board of ICAR, New Delhi due to
lack of qualified staff for teaching and non
maintenance of other standards in the said
Universities. Therefore, on account of
paucity of Academic Officers and other
Academic Staff, the respondent University
could not maintain the teaching standards and
other standards with the help of available
qualified staff for proposed accreditation of
7278.2016WP.odt
the respondent University in this year by the
ICAR and in that even the ICAR may refuse
accreditation to the respondent University or
to put on hold such accreditation. It is
submitted that the non accreditation of the
University may lead to loss of financial
grants (Rs.12 crores per year) from funding
agency i.e. ICAR which is very necessary for
the further development, education and
research work of the respondent University
and the University will not get 15% students
for Under Graduate (Dairy & Fisheries)
programme and 25% students for Post Graduate
(M.V.Sc.) programme from the ICAR due to non
accreditation of the University. In view of
the above counts, the Academic Council of the
respondent University by the Resolution Nos.
32 and 33/2016 under challenge in this Writ
Petition unanimously taken a policy decision
and resolved that in view of the shortage of
Academic Officers / Staff and ban of
7278.2016WP.odt
Government to fill up 50% vacant posts, not
to issue "No Objection Certificate" to the
Academic Officers / Staff of the University
including to the petitioners for admission to
Ph.D. degree course outside the University
for the academic year 2016-17. It has also
been resolved by the said Resolutions not to
relieve those staff members, who have been
issued NOC for Ph.D./M.V.Sc. degree programme
for the year 2016-17. However, this part of
the impugned Resolution has been suppressed
by the petitioners in this Writ Petition.
The said policy decision of the Academic
Council of the respondent University is based
on the well founded objects and sound reasons
and the same needs no interference of this
Court.
8. We have given careful consideration
to the submissions of the learned counsel for
the petitioners and the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent. At the outset
7278.2016WP.odt
it is necessary to mention that the
petitioners are rendering the services within
territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High
Court Bench at Nagpur. The respondent is
situated at Nagpur within jurisdiction of the
said Bench. Therefore, we find considerable
force in the argument advanced by the
respondent that the Writ Petition should have
been filed at Nagpur. Be that as it may, we
have considered the submissions of the
petitioners on merits and we are unable to
persuade ourselves to grant any relief for
the reasons stated herein below. As it is
evident from the perusal of the reply filed
by the respondent that the respondent
University may likely to face refusal of
accreditation to the respondent University
from ICAR due to lack of qualified staff for
teaching and non maintenance of other
standards in the said Universities.
Therefore, the respondent has taken a policy
7278.2016WP.odt
decision, by passing the impugned
resolutions, resolving that in view of
shortage of Academic Officers / Staff and ban
of Government to fill up 50% vacant posts,
not to issue No Objection Certificate to the
Academic Officers / Staff of the University
including the petitioners for admission to
Ph.D. degree course outside the University
for the academic year 2016-17. Therefore, the
said Resolutions would operate qua all the
Officers / Staff of the University. There is
no any arbitrary exercise of power or denial
of NOC in favour of the petitioners by
singling out the petitioners.
9. The facts of the case in the case of
Dr.Suresh Samadhan Ghoke (supra) vis-a-vis
the present case can be distinguished
inasmuch as in the facts of that case, though
ground of paucity of staff was agitated by
the University, the documents were placed on
record before the Court showing that as a
7278.2016WP.odt
matter of fact the University issued an
advertisement for filling in 11 posts of
Assistant Professors in the faculty of
Veterinary medicine. At the relevant time,
the stand taken by the University was that
they are short of Associate Professors.
Therefore, it was observed by the High Court
that the respondent has already taken steps
for recruiting Assistant Professors.
Therefore, after recording the satisfaction
that the respondent has already taken steps
for recruiting Assistant Professors, the
ground taken by the University about paucity
of staff was disapproved and this Court
allowed the said Writ Petition.
10. It is not necessary for us to give
elaborate reasons. Suffice it to say that the
respondent has taken conscious decision for
more than one reasons and the said decision
has been made applicable to all the Academic
Officers and Academic staff. Therefore, we
7278.2016WP.odt
are unable to persuade ourselves to grant any
relief to the petitioners, hence, the Writ
Petition stands rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
[V.K.JADHAV] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
