Bombay High Court
Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak ... vs Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar ... on 6 June, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
5704.13WP+
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5704 OF 2013
Smt. Madhuri Manikrao Sahasrabudhe,
Age:48 years, Occu.Service,
R/o:Plot NO.8, Sector-A,
Garware Quarters, CIDCO N-5,
Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Chief Secretary,
Higher Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
2. The Director of Higher Education,
M.S.Pune.
3. The Joint Director of Higher Education,
Aurangabad Division,Aurangabad
4. Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University,
Through its Registrar,
University Campus, Aurangabad
5. Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Aurangabad
(Through its Secretary-Nitin Rajaram Rathod,
Age:44 years, Occu:Nil,
C/o:Vasantrao Naik College, Jalna Road,
Aurangabad.
6. The Principal,
Vasantrao Naik College, Jalna Road,
Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:29:16 :::
5704.13WP+
2
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S.B. Talekar
A.G.P. for Respondent/State : Mrs. A.V.
Gondhalekar
Advocate for Respondent No.4 Mr. U.M. Maske
h/f Mr. R.R. Mane
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 :
Mr.S.S. Jadhavar
....
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4600 OF 2014
1. Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Aurangabad
Through its Secretary
2. Vasantrao Naik College,
Aurangabad
Through its Principal PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University, Aurangabad
Through its Registrar
2. The Grievance Committee,
Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University,Aurangabad
Through its President
3. College and University Development
Board, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University,Aurangabad
Through its Director
4. Smt.Madhuri Manikrao Sahastrabudhe,
Age 48 Years,Occu:Service,
R/o:Plot No.8, Sector-A,
Garware Quarters,CIDCO,
N-5,Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:29:16 :::
5704.13WP+
3
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.S. Jadhavar
A.G.P. for Respondent/State : Mrs. A.V.
Gondhalekar
Advocate for Respondent No.2 Mr. K.U. More
Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. S.B.
Talekar h/f Mr. U.R. Awate
....
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
ig RESERVED ON : May 4, 2016
PRONOUNCED ON : June 6, 2016
...
JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J)
Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of
the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
2. The petitioner in Writ Petition
No. 5704 of 2013 seeks directions to
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to fix the salary of
the petitioner, considering her earlier
services as full time Lecturer in Micro
5704.13WP+
Biology in Shriman Bhausaheb Zadbuke College,
Barsi during the period from 1st August, 1988
to 17th July, 1995 as well as in Vasantrao
Naik College, Aurangabad during the period
from 18th July, 1995 to 27th September, 2004
and pay the difference of arrears. The
petitioner also seeks directions to
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to implement the
order dated 28th September, 2012 passed by the
Grievance Committee, confirmed by the
Management Council on 24th December, 2012 and
communicated to Respondent No.6 - Principal,
vide letter dated 29th December, 2012. The
petitioners' in Writ Petition No.4600 of 2014
take exception to the aforementioned decision
of the Grievance Committee and also the
resolution of the Management Council.
3. The petitioner in Writ Petition
No. 5704 of 2013 has placed on record the
memo of Writ Petition No. 4975 of 1995, which
5704.13WP+
was filed by the petitioners' in Writ
Petition No. 4600 of 2014 and herself
jointly, being petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3
respectively therein.
4. For the purpose of deciding both
these Writ Petitions, it would be useful to
reproduce the relevant portion from the
pleadings in Writ Petition No. 4975 of 1995
hereinbelow:-
"1. ................. The petitioner no.2
is a Principal of the senior college
run by petitioner no.1 society and the
petitioner no.3 is the Lecturer in
Micro-Biology who was appointed after
her selection by a duly constituted
selection committee on 18.7.1995
against a permanent vacancy.
3. ............ However, for starting
the new subject Micro-Biology, they did
not have permission from the Government
and hence, the proposal for the said
5704.13WP+
purpose was submitted in the year 1991.
Petitioners state that when the
proposal was forwarded through proper
channel and when the Government was
convinced about the necessity to allow
the petitioners to start Micro-Biology
as an optional subject in their
college, then the Government should
have granted permission to start the
said subject without creating any
further confusion. However, though the
Government granted permission to start
the new subject Micro-Biology vide it's
order dtd.27.1.1993, it added an
unusual condition in the said
permission, preventing the petitioners
from appointing the necessary staff to
teach the subject. This condition being
against the norms of the University
Grants Commission, it was initially
bonafide believed that the said
condition was introduced by mistake
otherwise, there was no reason why the
Government should grant permission to
start new subject Micro-Biology without
granting permission to appoint duly
qualified staff to teach the said
subject.
5704.13WP+
4. Petitioners state that on one hand
this unusual condition was introduced
by the government while granting
permission to start the new subject
i.e. Micro-Biology, and on the other
hand the University was insisting that
duly qualified staff should be
appointed for teaching the said
subject, and therefore, the petitioner
no.3 came to be appointed after
following due process and after being
selected by a duly constituted
selection committee. The petitioner
no.3 has passed M.Sc. in Micro-Biology
and therefore, is qualified to teach
the said subject. The petitioners state
that the petitioner No.3 has already
acquired status of deemed confirmed
employee as per the statute framed by
the university.
6. .... result of the subject Micro-
Biology for the academic year 1993-94
was 98% for the year 1994-1995 was 97%
for the year 1995-1996 was 98% and form
1996-1997, it is continuously 100%. In
view of this, the petitioners again
5704.13WP+
requested the Government to delete the
condition of non appointment of staff
for the said course and sought
permission to continue the eligible
teachers who have given such an
extraordinary performance.
8. The petitioners state that after
the order passed by the Hon'ble High
Court, they immediately submitted a
representation to the respondent nos.1
to 3 requesting them to sanction salary
grants for the teachers teaching Micro-
Biology subject as well as other staff.
In the said Writ Petition direction
was sought to the Respondents to pay arrears
of salary grants as per Government policy.
5. It follows from the pleadings in
Writ Petition No.4975 of 1999 that the
petitioner - Smt. Madhuri Sahasrabudhe was
fully qualified for the post, which was
sanctioned and her selection was by the duly
5704.13WP+
constituted Committee; and further she
acquired status of deemed permanency.
Therefore, it is not open for petitioner
nos.1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 4600 of 2014
to resile from the statements made in Writ
Petition no. 4975 of 1999.
6.
If all the documents placed on
record are taken into consideration, we are
of the opinion that the resolution taken by
the Grievance Committee and approved by the
Management Council is in consonance with the
material placed on record. The Respondent -
management cannot take different stand than
that was taken in Writ Petition No. 4975 of
1999.
7. The contention of the learned
counsel appearing for the Respondent -
Management that the notice was not issued to
the Managing Committee by the Grievance
5704.13WP+
Committee has no force. The Principal did
receive the notice. The Respondent - College
and Management were fully aware of the
entitlement of the petitioner - Smt. Madhuri
Sahasrabudhe. The contention of the learned
counsel appearing for the Management that
Smt. Madhuri Sahasrabudhe agreed to accept
the consolidated pay cannot be accepted in
view of the fact that the Management has
taken stand in Writ Petition No. 4975 of 1999
that petitioner - Smt. Madhuri Sahasrabudhe
is fully qualified, the post for which she
applied was sanctioned, her selection was as
per the proper procedure through duly
constituted selection Committee, her services
have been approved and she has acquired
status of confirmed/deemed employee.
8. The resolution passed by the
Grievance Committee, reads thus :-
5704.13WP+
O;oLFkkiu ifj"kn
fnukad %[email protected]@2012
¼ 'kS{kf.kd foHkkx½
¼14½ fnukad 28&09&2012 jksth >kysY;k rdzkj fuokj.k lferh e/;s izLrko dz-
07]08] o 09 [kkyhy izek.ks izdj.k fudkyh dk<.;kdjhrk dsysyh f'kQkjl
O;oLFkki ifj"knsP;k ekU;rsLro lknj -----
lkscr % fnukad 28&09&2012 jksth ?ks.;kr vkysY;k Bjkokph izr lkscr tksMyh
vkgs-
IkzLrko dz fn-28&09&2012 jksthP;k rdzkj fuokj.k fnukad 28&09&2012
lferh e/;s Bso.;kr vkysys izLrko
ig jksthP;k rdzkj fuokj.k
lferhps Bjko
7 olarjko ukbZd egkfo|ky; ;sFks Jherh IkzLrqr izdj.kh lfoLRkj
ek/kqjh ekf.kdjko lgL=cq/ns] lw{etho'kkL= ppkZ gksmu lnjhy
fo"k;kP;k vf/kO;k[;krk ;kauk lsok lkRk;] dkxni=kph rikl.kh dsyh
osru fu'prh o Fkdhr osru feG.ks ckcr vlrk vlk fu.kZ; ns.;kr
laca/khrkps fnukad 04&10&2011 ps i= ;srks dh] rdzkj dR;kZl
rdzkj fuokj.k lferhP;k fopkjkFkZ lknj- njE;kuP;k dkGkrhy iw.kZ
ixkj ns.;kr ;kok o lsok
iqfLrdk r;kj d:u ns.;kr
;koh o osrukps osGksosGhps
ykHk ns.;kr ;kos v'kh
f'kQkjl dj.;kr vkyh
lnjhy izdj.k O;oLFkkiu
ifj"knsph ekU;rk ?ksmu uarj
lacaf/krkl dGfo.ks ckcr
iz'kkldh; dk;Zokgh
dj.;kr ;koh vls Bjys-
O;LFkkiu ifj"knsleksj
Bso.;kr ;smu O;oLFkkiu
ifj"knsP;k fu.kZ;kuqlkj
dk;Zokgh dj.;kr ;sbZy-
Sd/-
Deputy Registrar,
(Academic)
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Marathwada University,
Aurangabad.
5704.13WP+
9. The true translation of the said
Resolution is as under :-
Management Council.
Date: 28/12/2012
(Education Department).
(14) In the meeting of the Dispute Redressal Council held
on 28-09-2012, Proposal Nos.07, 08 and 09 are put up before
the management Council with recommendations for disposal of
the matters, as below.....
Enclosure: Annexed herewith copy of the Resolution
dated 28-09-1012.
Prop-
osal
Proposals put up before Resolutions of the Dispute
the Dispute Redressal Redressal Council dt.28-09-
No. Council on 28-09-2012. 2012.
7 To put up letter dated After having a detailed
04-10-2011 in respect discussion and scrutiny of
of giving continuity in the documents, it is
service, pay fixation resolved and recommended
and arrears of pay to that the complainant be
Smt. Madhuri Manikrao paid full salary for the
Sahastrabuddhe, intervening period, service
Professor in the book be prepared and the
subject of Microbiology benefits of pay from time
in Vasantrao Naik to time be given to her. It
College. is decided that after
taking approval of the
management council to the
said matter, administrative
action to communicate the
same to the concerned be
taken. It will be put up
before the Management
Council and action will be
taken as per the decision
of the Management Council.
Sd/-
Deputy Registrar,
(Academic)
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Marathwada University,
Aurangabad.
5704.13WP+
The above-stated resolution has been
approved by the Managing Committee of the
Respondent - University.
10. In the light of the discussion in
foregoing paragraphs, we direct Respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 to implement the resolution
taken by the Grievance Committee and approved
by the University, as expeditiously as
possible, and preferably within three months
from today. Since the post to which the
petitioner - Smt. Madhuri Sahasrabudhe was
appointed, was on unaided basis, Respondent
Nos. 5 and 6 will have to disburse to her the
entire outstanding amount towards arrears of
salary etc., from their own financial source.
We make it clear that in case, Respondent
Nos. 5 and 6 do not adhere to or implement
the decision of the Grievance committee, we
grant liberty to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to
take all possible steps against Respondent
5704.13WP+
Nos. 5 and 6, as permissible in law, to seek
implementation of the decision of the
committee, keeping in view the fact that
petitioner Smt. Madhuri Sahasrabudhe was
required to file Petitions and also
application before the Grievance committee,
which took considerable time to decide the
same.
11. Petitions are disposed of in the
above terms. Rule made absolute in the above
terms. No costs.
(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
SGA
