Bombay High Court
Dr. Saifuddin Ahmed S/O Tachaddel ... vs The Registrar, Maharashtra ... on 3 March, 2016
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 WP4254.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4254 OF 2015
PETITIONER : Dr. Saifuddin Ahmed S/o Tachaddel Hossain
Aged about 58 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Rahim Market, Basam Stand, Akola,
Tq. & Dist. Akola.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS
: 1] The Registrar,
Maharashtra University of Health Science,
Mhusrul, Dindori Road, Nashik
2] The Homeopathic Education Society,
through its Secretary, Homeopathic Medical College,
Akot Road, Tq. and Dist. Akola.
3] The Homeopathic Medical College,
through its Principal, Akot Road, Akola.
4] The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department of Medical
Education and Drugs, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
5] The Central Council of Homeopathy,
Janak Puri, New Delhi - 58.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. B. Mirza, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A. L. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent no.1.
Mr. A. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
Mrs. A. R. Taywade, A.G.P. for the respondent no.4.
Mr. S. S. Shinde, Advocate for the respondent no.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
DATE : MARCH 03, 2016.
2 WP4254.15.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal
at the stage of admission itself.
2] Initially, the petitioner had challenged the Resolution
No.248/2014, dated 23.12.2014, passed by the respondent no.1 -The
Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Science. This Court, by
order dated 22.02.2016, in view of the ground raised by the petitioner
in respect of the coram of the Grievance Committed, permitted the
petitioner to amend the petition. The petition is accordingly amended.
3] In view of the amendment, the petition raises amended
ground 'R', which reads thus :
"R. Bare perusal of the report dated 15.03.2011,
which prima facie disclosing that the two members of
grievance committee i.e. Pro Vice Chancellor and
Registrar of University have submitted the report to
management counsel, but as per provision of sub-
section 3 of section 53 of the Maharashtra University
Act, the grievance committee shall consisting of
3 WP4254.15.odt
following members, namely, The Pro-Vice Chancellor,
Four members of the management Council nominated
by the Management Council from amongst themselves,
the Registrar of University, but the report dated
15.03.2011 is submitted by the two members of the
grievance committee is contrary to law and the report
submitted by the grievance committee on 15.03.2011
is deserves to be quashed and set aside. Thus, decision
rendered by resolution No. 284/14, dated 23.12.214
on basis of the report dated 15.03.2011 by the
Managing Council would be vitiated. Copy of the
report, dated 15.03.2011 is annexed herewith and
marked as "Annexure-T."
4] Thus, the petition revolves around a very limited
controversy that if the report forwarded by the Grievance Committee
and resolution is passed in view of the report of the Grievance
Committee and if the said Grievance Committee itself is not constituted
as per the provisions of law i.e. not having its full coram, whether the
report forwarded by the Grievance Committee can sustain.
5] This Court, in an identical situation and interestingly, in a
petition filed by the very same petitioner i.e. Writ Petition No.
6767/2013, had an occasion to consider the issue in question. This
4 WP4254.15.odt
Court in view of the reported judgment of this Court in case of Shivaji
Education Society and another .vs. Maharashtra University of
Health Sciences and others, reported in 2015 (1) ABR 15, found that
the report of the Grievance Committee, which is not constituted as per
the provisions of the Act, is unsustainable. This Court by referring to
the judgment in the case of Shivaji Education Society (supra), in clear
and unambiguous terms found that "if the Act provides constitution of
the Committee with requisite number of members, then the decision has
to be taken in the Grievance Committee by those required number of
members forming the Grievance Committee."
6] In the present case, it is an admitted position that the
Grievance Committee, which forwarded the report on 15.03.2011, was
consisting of only three members. Perusal of the copy of the report
placed on record shows that the Grievance Committee was consisting of
the Pro-Vice Chancellor being the Chairman of the Grievance
Committee, one Dr. Gajanan Ekbote, Member and Dr. Suryakar,
Registrar of the University i.e. Member Secretary of the Grievance
Committee.
7] Mr. Abheejeet Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing
5 WP4254.15.odt
for the respondent no.1 - University fairly submits that as this Court has
taken a view in Writ Petition No. 6767/2013 on the backdrop of the
judgment in case of Shivaji Education Society (supra), he will not be in a
position to support the order of the Grievance Committee.
8] Considering this very aspect, in my opinion, the petition
needs to be partly allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly
allowed.
Corrected as The report of the Grievance Committee, 15.03.2011 along
per Court's
order dtd
21.3.16 with the resolution, dated 23.12.2014 passed by the Managing Council
are set aside.
The Grievance Committee by affording an opportunity of
hearing to the parties, if request is made by the parties by written
submissions, shall hear the parties and take a decision afresh and then
report to the Management Council for further appropriate action.
Considering the fact that the petitioner is retiring on superannuation in
near future, the Grievance Committee to take decision afresh as early
as possible.
JUDGE
Diwale
