Bombay High Court
Nanasaheb Santosh Patil vs North Maharashtra University & ... on 21 August, 2017
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
(1) 38 wp 3595.05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3595 OF 2005
Ku. Ratnaprabha d/o Dhondu Kulkarni,
alias Mrs. Ratnaprabha w/o Vijay Khairnar,
Age : 45 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o 34, Professor Colony, Dhule,
Tq. and Dist. Dhule. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. North Maharashtra University,
Jalgaon, through its Registrar.
2. Gramin Vikas Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal, Nardana,
Tq. Shindkheda, District Dhule
through its President.
3. The Principal,
Late Bhausaheb M.D. Shisode,
Arts and Commerce College,
Nardana, Tq. Shindkheda,
District Dhule.
4. Joint Director of Higher
Education, Jalgoan Region,
Jalgaon. .. Respondents
---
Mr. A.H. Nagargoje, Advocate h/f. D.M. Mane for Petitioner.
Mr. R.V. Dasalkar, Advocate for Respondent/State.
Mr. Y.B. Bolkar, Advocate h/f. R.B. Raghuwanshi for Respondent no.1
Mr. K.C. Sant, Advocate for Respondent nos. 2 and 3.
---
with
WRIT PETITION NO. 2450 OF 2004
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:18:54 :::
(2) 38 wp 3595.05
Nanasaheb s/o Santosh Patil,
Age : 36 yrs, Occ. Service,
Lecturer in Marathi, Arts, Commerce
College, Nardana, Tal. Sindkheda,
District Dhule. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. North Maharashtra University,
Jalgaon, through its Registrar.
2. Gramin Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Nardana,Taluka Sindkheda,
District Dhule, through its
President.
3. The Principal,
Late M.D. Shisode alias Bhausaheb
Arts and Commerce College,
Nardana, Tal. Sindkheda,
District Dhule.
4. The Joint Director of Higher Education,
Jalgoan Division, Jalgaon. .. Respondents
---
Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. R.V. Dasalkar, Advocate for Respondent/State.
Mr. Y.B. Bolkar, Advocate h/f. R.B. Raghuwanshi for Respondent no.1
Mr. K.C. Sant, Advocate for Respondent nos. 2 and 3.
---
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 21.08.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
. The petitioner in writ petition no. 2450/2004 was initially
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:18:54 :::
(3) 38 wp 3595.05
appointed as a Lecturer in Marathi subject with respondent college in
March 1992, whereas, the petitioner in writ petition no. 3595/2005 was
appointed in July-August 1992.
2. The proposal seeking approval to their appointments as
Lecturer in Marathi subject is rejected.
3. We have heard Mr. Barlinge and Mr. Nagargoje, the learned
counsel for respective writ petitioners, Mr. Bolkar the learned counsel for
the University, Mr. Sant, the learned counsel for the institution and the
learned A.G.P.
4. The anomalous situation has arisen because of the wrong
assumption of the existing state of affairs.
5. It is not disputed that two posts were admissible with the
respondent-college in Marathi subject. As per the required selection
procedure the institution with permission of University published the
advertisement for one post of Lecturer on 12.02.1992. The selection
committee was constituted by the University and interviews were held on
22.03.1992. Pursuant to the said selection process, the petitioner in writ
petition no. 2450/2004 (Mr. Patil) was appointed. However, the
appointment order shows that he is appointed for one month. The
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:18:54 :::
(4) 38 wp 3595.05
approval is granted also for one academic year i.e. for a month. Though,
the post was full time sanctioned post.
6. Subsequently, in July 1992 again a fresh advertisement was
published inviting applications for the post of Lecturer in Marathi subject
and in the said selection process one Bodare and the petitioner in writ
petition no. 3595/2005 (Miss Kulkarni) were selected. The petitioner in
writ petition no. 2450/2004, though, participated in the selection process
was not selected. The two persons selected in the selection process
were appointed on the two posts.
7. Mr. Patil, was terminated, he approached the college-tribunal.
A compromise was entered into between Mr. Patil and the institution and
thereafter Mr. Patil was reinstated.
8. It appears that additional posts of Marathi subject is created
in the academic year 1996-1997 and since then three posts for Marathi
subject are approved. It is also not disputed that both the petitioners' in
these writ petitions and one Mr. Bodare are working since their
appointments. The bone of contention of the petitioners' is about their
approval from the initial date of appointments. All three cannot be
approved from the academic year 1992-1993. In view of the fact that
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:18:54 :::
(5) 38 wp 3595.05
only two posts were admissible at the relevant time, though, all three
were appointed after following due selection process and by duly
constituted selection committee.
9. It would be seen that in the interregnum, Mr. Patil was
terminated, he has approached the college-tribunal. Mr. Patil had also
participated in the fresh selection process which was conducted in July
1992, however, was not selected therein and Miss Kulkarni and Mr.
Bodare were selected and appointed.
10. Mr. Patil as has again participated in the selection process in
July 1992 and was not selected, the other two persons were selected and
appointed and continued in the said post. However, Mr. Patil was also
appointed through proper selection committee, at a time when the post
was admissible. We will have to adjust the equities.
11. Approval is granted to the petitioner in writ petition no.
2450/2004 (Mr. Patil) from 1996-1997 i.e. when the additional posts
became admissible. The said approval being provisional in nature will
have to be made absolute and final and Miss Kulkarni will have to be
considered for approval from the academic year 1992-1993. It is stated
that Mr. Bodare is already granted approval from the academic year
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 02:18:54 :::
(6) 38 wp 3595.05
1992-1993.
12. In light of the above, we pass the following order.
ORDER
i) The respondent shall grant approval to the petitioner in
writ petition no. 2450/2004 (Mr. Patil) from the
academic year 1996-1997.
ii) The interim order passed by this Court on 02.02.2006
states that the provisional approval shall be granted
from 1996-1997, however, considering the fact that all
the Advocates are unanimous including the Advocate
for the University that third post is admissible in the
academic year 1996-1997. Mr. Patil shall be granted
approval from the academic year 1996-1997, whereas,
petitioner in writ petition no. 3595/2005 (Miss Kulkarni)
shall be granted approval to her appointment from the
academic year 1992-1993.
iii) Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms.
iv) No costs.
[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
mub
