Bombay High Court
Sudhir Prakashrao Dhinde vs State Of Mah & Ors on 11 August, 2017
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
(1) 911 wp 2258.05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2258 OF 2005
Shri. Sudhir s/o Prakashrao Dhinde
Aged 28 years, Occ. Service,
R/o "Sai Niwas", Sahyog Nagar,
Kalamnuri, Tq. Kalamnuri,
District Hingoli. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through: Secretary,
Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Vice Chancellor,
Swami Ramanand Tirtha Marathwada
University, Nanded.
Through its Registrar.
3. Board of College and University
Development, Swami Ramanand
Tirtha Marathwada Unversity,
Nanded, Through its Director.
4. Deputy Director (Education),
Nanded Division, Nanded.
District Nanded.
5. The Principal,
Shri. Yoganand Swami Arts
College, Basmatnagar,
District Hingoli. .. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:18:24 :::
(2) 911 wp 2258.05
---
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. B.S. Kudale
AGP for Respondents: Mr. D.R. Kale
Advocate for Respondents :Mr. Malte Uday S. for R/2 and 3.
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. V.D. Sapkal for R/5.
---
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 11.08.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
. The present petition is filed seeking approval to the
appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Public
Administration subject.
2. Mr. Kudale, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner
was appointed after following due selection process pursuant to the
advertisement on a clear vacant post. The learned counsel further
submits that the approval is not granted to the appointment of the
petitioner on erroneous ground.
3. Mr. Malte, the learned counsel submits that as per the
advertisement the post was to be filled in and the selection committee
had interviewed the candidates. The petitioner was at serial no.2, the
person at serial no.1 did not join, however, the appointment of petitioner
seems to be under the Government communication dated 23.01.2004
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:18:24 :::
(3) 911 wp 2258.05
and not on the basis of advertisement.
4. Mr. Sapkal, the learned counsel submits that, at the relevant
time the post available was only on clock hour basis and the petitioner
was appointed on consolidated salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month. The
petitioner has left the respondent college on 03.10.2005.
5. In the present matter, we are only concerned with the
question about the grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner.
6. The approval can only be granted, if the post at the relevant
time was available i.e. the same was a clear vacant post.
7. It appears that, pursuant to advertisement, the petitioner
participated in the selection process and was also selected. However, the
appointment order seems to be on consolidated salary of Rs. 8,000/- per
month.
8. It is not clear from the record placed before us, as to the
availability of the post. In view of that, we pass the following order:
ORDER
i) The respondent management and the college shall provide
(4) 911 wp 2258.05
approved staffing pattern of the year 2003-04 and 2004-05
to the University.
ii) The University shall consider the said staffing pattern and if
at the relevant time when the petitioner was appointed, the
post was available, then shall grant approval to the
appointment of the petitioner for the period the petitioner
was working with the respondent college.
iii) Irrespective of the factum of grant of approval, the
monetary dues would not be a subject matter of
consideration.
iv) Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs.
[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
mub
