Bombay High Court
Shaikh Saleem Shaikh Chand vs Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada ... on 15 March, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
1 WP 996/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.996 OF 2015
WITH
CA 2670/2015 WITH CA/3322/2016
Dr. Shaikh Saleem s/o Shaikh Chand
Age 57 years, Occu. Service
R/o Plot No.16, Maulana Azad
Housing Society, Rouza Baug,
Aurangabad, District-Aurangabad. ..PETITIOENR
VERSUS
1.
Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University, Aurangabad,
University Campus, Aurangabad
Through its Registrar
2. The Director
Board of college and University
Development, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Marathwada University, Aurangabad.
3. Maulana Azad Educational Trust,
Dr.Rafik Zakeria Campus,
Roajaj baug, Aurangabad,
Through its Chairman/Secretary
District Selection Committee. ..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.V.D.Hon, Senior Counsel with Mr.Sayyed Tauseef
Yaseen, Advocate for the Petitioner;
Mr.S.K.Kadam, AGP for State;
Mr.S.G.Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2
and 3.
...
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
P.R.BORA,JJ.
DATE :
15 th
March,2016.
2 WP 996/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER:- R.M.BORDE,J.)
1) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel
for the parties, the petition is taken up for
final disposal at admission stage.
2) The petitioner is functioning as
Director of the Millennium Institute of
Management, Roza Baug, Aurangabad, since 2003.
He is objecting to order dated 12.1.2015 passed
by the Director, Board of College and University
Development, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University, Aurangabad, thereby directing
withdrawal of the approval accorded by the
university to the appointment of the petitioner
as a Director in the year 2006. The petitioner
claims that he fulfills the requisite eligibility
criterion for appointment to the post of Director
and as such, taking into consideration the
application of the petitioner as well as after
observing the procedure prescribed under the
relevant Regulations, he came to be appointed on
the post of Director of the aforesaid institute
3 WP 996/2015
of management.
3) It is the contention of the petitioner
that his name has been recommended by the duly
constituted selection committee and on
consideration of the recommendations the
institution has appointed him as a Director in
the year 2003.
4)
A proposal was moved for according
approval to the appointment of the petitioner in
the year 2003 and the university appears to have
acted upon the proposal and accorded approval to
the appointment of the petitioner only in the
year 2006.
5) On 8.4.2013 a complaint was received by
the university, questioning appointment of the
petitioner as a Director. On consideration of the
said complaint; report of the committee,
appointed by the university for investigating
into the complaint; after issuing show cause
notice to the petitioner and on receiving reply
4 WP 996/2015
to the show cause notice and on considering the
said reply, the university came to the conclusion
that the petitioner does not fulfill the
eligibility criterion for appointment to the post
of Director and as such, by order dated 27th
March, 2014, the university passed an order of
withdrawal of the approval accorded to the
appointment of the petitioner in the year 2006.
6) The said adverse order issued against
the petitioner was subjected to challenge at the
instance of the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.3058/2014. During the course of hearing of the
said petition, the university took a decision to
withdraw the order impugned in that petition,
which satisfied the grievances raised by the
petitioner and as such, the said petition was
disposed of.
7) Although the respondents before the
court, i.e. university authorities asserted their
intention to take steps in view of the complaint
5 WP 996/2015
received against the petitioner, the court did
not express any opinion in that regard.
8) The learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner contends that after withdrawal of the
impugned order in the earlier writ petition, it
was not permissible for the university
authorities to consider the grievances raised in
the complaint, which was also the basis for
issuance of the earlier order dated 27 th March,
2014. It is also the contention of the
petitioner that since no leave of the court was
sought, it was impermissible on the part of the
university authorities to act upon the complaint
on second occasion.
9) We, however, refrain to express any
opinion on the contentions raised by the
petitioner in this regard, since we are remanding
the matter and directing re-consideration of the
grievances/issue raised by the petitioner in the
instant petition once again.
6 WP 996/2015
10) It is not a matter of dispute that while
issuing second order i.e. order dated 12.1.2015,
which is being impugned in the instant petition,
the petitioner has not been extended any
opportunity of hearing. The contention of the
petitioner, that adverse order has been issued
against him without observing the principles of
natural justice and as such the same deserves to
be quashed and set aside, is liable to be
accepted.
11) The petitioner also contends that the
University Ordinance No.168-B is not attracted in
the instant case since it was framed in 2005
whereas the petitioner has been appointed to the
post of Director in 2003. The Ordinance No.168-B
cannot have retrospective application. It is
also contended that the petitioner fulfills the
requisite norms prescribed by AICTE and since he
was permitted to be continued to serve from 2003
to 2015; and that there is no complaint in
7 WP 996/2015
respect of his functioning as a Director, it was
not permissible for the university to issue the
impugned order after a lapse of about ten years
of his appointment to withdraw the approval
accorded to his appointment.
12) As has been stated herein above, since
the matter is being redirected to university for
consideration, we refrain from expressing any
opinion on the objections raised by the
petitioner in the instant petition and it would
be open for the petitioner to raise all these
objections before the university authorities.
The order impugned in this petition since has
been issued without observing the principles of
natural justice, we deem it appropriate to quash
and set aside the same and direct the university
authorities to re-consider the issue after
extending an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. It is specifically made clear that
this Court has not expressed any opinion as
regards merits of the contentions raised by the
8 WP 996/2015
petitioner in the instant petition. It would be
open for the petitioner to raise all the issues
before the university authorities and it would be
open for the university authorities to consider
the matter afresh.
13) Rule is accordingly made absolute to the
extent specified above. There shall be no order
as to costs. Pending civil applications stand
disposed of.
sd/- sd/-
(P.R.BORA) (R.M.BORDE)
JUDGE JUDGE
bdv/
