Bombay High Court
Nimba Zopa Patil vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 24 November, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp 5015.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5015 OF 2015
Dr. Nimba S/o Zopa Patil,
Age : 47 Years, Occu. : Service,
R/o 65, Ramkrishna Nagar,
Nakane Road, Deopur, Dhule,
Tq. & Dist. Dhule .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Higher Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Director of Higher Education
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. Joint Director of Higher Education,
Jalgaon Region, Jalgaon.
4. North Maharashtra University,
Jalgaon, through its Registrar.
5. The Principal,
Krantiveer Navalbhau Arts College,
Naval Nagar, Dhule,
Tq. & Dist. Dhule. .. Respondents
Shri Ankush N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri Y. B. Bolkar, Advocate h/f Shri A. B. Girase, Advocate for
the Respondent No. 4.
Shri S. R. Barlinge, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5.
::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2016 00:27:54 :::
2 wp 5015.15
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
parties taken up for final hearing.
2. Mr. Nagargoje, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that, the petitioner was appointed for the first time with
the respondent No. 5/college in the year 1993 on clock hour basis.
Thereafter again the petitioner was appointed in the year 1994
as part time and in June 1995 the petitioner was appointed as
full time lecturer in defence subject. The learned counsel
submits that, for the first time when the petitioner was
appointed on clock hour basis, the petitioner had undergone
selection process as contemplated. Even in the year 1994, the
petitioner had undergone selection process. So also is the case in
the year 1995. According to the learned counsel in the year 1995
an advertisement was issued for appointment of full time
lecturers for various subjects. The defence subject was one of
them. Many such lecturers were appointed as full time lecturers
along with the petitioner in different subjects.
3. The proposal was submitted by the institution seeking
approval to the appointments of various lecturers. All other
3 wp 5015.15
lecturers were granted permanent approval from 1995-1996,
however, the petitioner was granted permanent approval from
the year 1996-1997. According to the learned counsel petitioner
represented to the respondents for grant of permanent approval
to his appointment, but of no avail. The petitioner also
approached the grievance committee. The grievance committee
considered grievance of the petitioner and came to be conclusion
that, the petitioner is entitled to be granted approval as full time
lecturer since the year 1995-1996. The university has not
accepted the same only on the ground that in respect of work load
of defence subject there is overwriting. The college was started
in the year 1993-1994. Four clock hours were available for
defence subject in that year. Thereafter in the year 1994-1995
work load of eight clock hours was available and in the year 1995-
1996 work load of twelve clock hours was available. The same
was sufficient for appointment of a full time lecturer. The
learned counsel submits that, even the management of the
respondent/college had categorically represented that, twelve
lectures were available in defence subject in the year 1995-1996.
The document sent by principal are also placed on record. As
such, the petitioner was required to be granted approval from the
year 1995-1996.
4. Mr. Bolkar, the learned counsel for the university submits
that, in fact there is no clear statement about availability of
4 wp 5015.15
twelve clock hours for the defence subject in the year 1995-1996.
As such, the university could not have granted approval to the
appointment of the petitioner as full time lecturer from the year
1995-1996, however, granted the approval as full time lecturer
from 1996-1997.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that,
advertisement was issued in the year 1993. The petitioner was
appointed as part time lecturer. The same has been rightly
considered.
6. We have also heard Mr. Barlinge, the learned counsel for
the respondent No. 5/college.
7. It is not disputed that the petitioner has been granted
approval as full time lecturer since the year 1996-1997. The
dispute is only to the extent that, whether the petitioner can be
granted approval as full time lecturer from the year 1995-1996.
The aspect of availability of work load is to be determined by the
Joint Director of Higher Education. As per the contention of the
university, there was some overwriting with regard to work load.
The letter issued by the principal of the college is placed on
record stating that twelve clock hours were available for the
defence subject in the year 1995-1996. There was no impediment
to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as full
5 wp 5015.15
time lecturer since the year 1995-1996 considering extent of
availability of work load.
8. Considering the above, the respondent No. 4/university
shall reconsider the case of the petitioner seeking grant of
approval to his appointment as full time lecturer from the year
1995-1996 and part time lecturer from 1994-1995. The Joint
Director of Higher Education shall confirm about the availability
of the work load in defence subject with the respondent No.
5/college from the year 1995-1996 within a period of three (03)
months from today and communicate the same to the university.
The university on receipt of the same shall reconsider the
proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner as
full time lecturer from 1995-1996 expeditiously and preferably
within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of
availability of work load from the Joint Director of Education.
Rule accordingly is made absolute in above terms. No
costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ K. L. WADANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/Nov. 16
