Dr. Dineshchand Agrawal vs Union Of India Through The ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5715 Bom

Dixit
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                               CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.315 OF 2017

        Dr. Dineshchand Agrawal                                ....       Petitioner
                Versus
        Union of India,
        Through the Secretary,
        Ministry of Human Resource Development,
        Government of India, New Delhi & Ors.                  ....       Respondents

Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy, i/by Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Vinod Joshi for Respondent No.4.

Mr. Neel Helekar for Respondent No.5.

Mr. A.M. Sethana for Respondent Nos.1 and 6-UOI.

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.

DATE : 7TH AUGUST, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of

the parties.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for all

the Respondents.

3. This Petition has been preferred against the order dated 16 th

WP-315-17.doc

September 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai,

in O.A. No.625 of 2016 preferred by the Petitioner.

4. In the O.A. No.625 of 2016, the Petitioner had challenged the

constitutionality of the Recruitment Rules dated 9th June 2012 for

appointment to the post of 'Principal' of Government Law College, Daman.

5. In the order dated 16th September 2016, it is observed by the

Tribunal that the Petitioner had already preferred a representation

ventilating his grievances and requesting the authorities to suitably amend

the Recruitment Rules for appointment to the said post of 'Principal'.

Hence, the Tribunal has directed Respondent No.3, i.e. the Secretary

(Education), Administration of Daman & Diu, Daman, to consider and

dispose of the first representation of the Petitioner dated 21st July 2014 in

accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order within four

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned

counsel for all the Respondents agreed that Respondent No.3 is not an

appropriate authority to consider the representation of the Petitioner and

the appropriate authority would be Respondent No.1, i.e. Union of India,

through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development,

Government of India, New Delhi.

WP-315-17.doc

7. In this view of the matter, the order dated 16 th September 2016

passed by the Tribunal is modified and instead of Respondent No.3

considering the representation, as directed by the Tribunal, Respondent

No.1, in consultation with Respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6, if found necessary,

to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner within a

period of three months from the date of communication of this order.

8. Till the representation of the Petitioner is decided, the post of

'Principal' of Government Law College, Daman, shall not be filled up.

9. Petition is disposed of.

10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

11. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]

WP-315-17.doc