Bombay High Court
Dilip Namdeo Nagargoje vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 15 October, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/425/1997+
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 425 OF 1997
1.The Secretary,
Dayanand Education Society,
Latur.
2. The Principal,
Dayanand Arts (Jr) College,
Latur. ..Petitioners
Versus
1. Gangadhar Sambhaji Deshmukh
Age 43 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o C/o Sambhaji Namdeo Akangire,
Near Chetan Niwas, Prakash Nagar,
At Latur.
2. Dy. Director of Education,
Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.
3. The State of Maharashtra
4. Deelip Namdeo Nagorgoje,
Age major, Occ. Service
R/o Dayanand Arts (Jr) College,
Latur.
5. Director of Higher Education,
Pune. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Smt. Anjali Bajpai Dube
AGP for Respondents 2, 3 & 5 : Shri S.B.Joshi
Advocate for Respondent 1 : Shri V.G.Sakolkar
Advocate for Respondent 4 : Shri S.D.Karkare
h/f Shri A.M.Karad
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2583 OF 1998
Deelip Namdeo Nagorgoje,
Age 27 years, Occ. Service
R/o Dayanand Arts (Jr) College,
Latur. ..Petitioner
::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/10/2016 00:42:51 :::
WP/425/1997+
2
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Principal,
Dayanand Arts (Jr) College,
Latur.
3. The Secretary,
Dayanand Education Society,
Latur.
4. Dy. Director of Education,
Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.
Age 43 years, Occ. Nil,
5. Gangadhar Sambhaji Deshmukh
R/o C/o Sambhaji Namdeo Akangire,
Near Chetan Niwas, Prakash Nagar,
At Latur.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri S.D.Karkare
h/f Shri A.M.Karad
AGP for Respondents 1 & 4 : Shri S.B.Joshi
Advocate for Respondents 2 & 3 : Smt. Anjali Bajpai Dube
Advocate for Respondent 5 : Shri V.G.Sakolkar
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: October 15, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. The petitioners in the first petition are the management and
Principal of the educational institution, who are aggrieved by the
judgment dated 6.11.1996, delivered by the School Tribunal,
Aurangabad, by which, Appeal No.156 of 1995, filed by respondent
No.1 was allowed and he was granted reinstatement as a Full Time
Lecturer in Philosophy (against S.T. category), for the academic year
WP/425/1997+
1995-96. Respondent No.4 in the first petition has filed the second
petition, challenging the same judgment of the School Tribunal,
being apprehensive that if respondent No.1/ employee / original
appellant is reinstated, he is likely to lose his employment.
2. By order dated 6.2.1997 the learned Division Bench of his
Court admitted the Writ Petition and stayed the impugned judgment
by granting interim relief in terms of prayer clause (B) in the first
petition. By an order dated 24.3.2000 passed by this Court in Civil
Application No.318 of 2000, filed by respondent No.4 herein, the
Education Department was directed to grant approval to respondent
No.4 and which was subject to the result of the petition.
3. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for
the respective sides.
4. The undisputed factors emerging from these petitions are as
under:-
(a) For the academic year 1992-93, the appellant
Gangadhar Sambhaji Deshmukh was appointed as a Lecturer
against the post reserved for S.T. category in Philosophy.
(b) Even after the second advertisement for 1993-94, a
candidate belonging to the S.T. category was not available and
WP/425/1997+
hence the appellant was continued.
(c) Same situation occurred in the academic year 1994-95
and the appellant was continued.
(d) In the academic year 1995-96, an advertisement was
published calling for applications in the Philosophy subject for
two posts, one being reserved for S.T. category and one for
other backward category.
(e) Respondent No.4, who is the petitioner in the second
petition, belongs to the caste Vanjari, which was said to fall
under O.B.C. and was appointed in the said category.
(f) The appellant was not appointed against the S.T.
category since the management had received a letter dated
22.5.1995 from the Deputy Director of Education by which it
was directed not to appoint a candidate from the open
category against the post reserved for the S.T. category.
(g) The appellant preferred Appeal No.156 of 1995 and the
Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, concluded that when no
candidate from the S.T. category was available, the appellant
should have been appointed again for one academic year
against the S.T. category.
(h) There is no dispute as regards the appointment of
respondent No.4 from the O.B.C. category and the said issue
was neither addressed to the School Tribunal, nor to this
Court. There are no pleadings in relation to any dispute
regarding respondent No.4.
WP/425/1997+
(i) As such, since the second petition filed by respondent
No.4 is purely out of apprehension that he might lose his job,
the said petition is disposed off and Rule is discharged.
5. The undisputed factors mentioned above clearly indicate that
the appellant, at best, had a right to continue for one academic year
on the post reserved for the S.T. category. No further right can be
said to have been created in his favour since that was the fourth
academic year for which, the post reserved for S.T. was again
advertised. It is trite law that such a post has to be advertised
atleast five times for five consecutive years and in the event no
candidate belonging to that reserved category is available, the
reservation is shifted to the next reserved category as per the roster
system. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal has rightly
concluded that the appellant can only be accommodated for one
academic year 1995-96. This conclusion of the Tribunal has not been
challenged by the appellant before this Court.
6. It cannot be ignored that the issue as regards the appointment
of respondent No.4 was neither subjudice before the School Tribunal,
nor is this Court required to deal with that issue in it's supervisory /
writ jurisdiction. So also, there is no conflict of interest in between
the appellant, who belongs to the open category and respondent
No.4, who now belongs to the N.T. (G) category, the appellant who
WP/425/1997+
belongs to the open category was appointed against the S.T.
category. So also, this Court by order dated 24.3.2000 has directed
the grant of approval to the services of respondent No.4.
Consequentially his services have been approved and now he is
settled in employment for the last 21 years.
7. In the light of the above, the only issue that needs to be
considered is as regards the fate of the appellant. The Tribunal has
granted him reinstatement only for one academic year 1995-96, for
being accommodated against the S.T. category, temporarily. He has
accepted the said order. Nevertheless, he was not reinstated in
service and could not have been reinstated in service, since the
Tribunal's judgment was delivered after the end of the academic year
1995-96 on 6.11.1996. Apparently, he has not worked in that
academic year. However, it needs to be noted that he has suffered
rigors of litigation and unemployment for one academic year on
account of the act of the petitioner / management. I, therefore,
deem it proper, just, appropriate and equitable to grant the
appellant compensation of six months' wages, inclusive of all
allowances under Section 11(2)(e) of the Maharashtra Employees of
Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977.
8. The first petition is, therefore, partly allowed by modifying
the relief granted by the School Tribunal in Clause (3) to the
WP/425/1997+
appellant and by directing the petitioner / management to pay six
months' gross salary, inclusive of all allowances, as were admissible
to a Full Time Lecturer in the academic year 1995-96 along with
interest @ 6% per annum from November 1996 till it is actually paid,
under Section 11(2)(e) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private
Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The petitioners
shall, therefore, pay these amounts to the appellant within a period
of three months from today.
9.
Rule is made partly absolute in the first petition in the above
terms.
10. Since the second petition filed by the respondent No.4 is
purely out of apprehension that he might lose his job, as held earlier,
the said petition is disposed off and the Rule is discharged.
11. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed off.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
