Bombay High Court
Anil S/O Namdeorao Therkar vs The State Of Maha. Thr. Principal ... on 28 February, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp4911.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION Nos. 4911 & 4905 OF 2016.
******
WRIT PETITION No. 4911 OF 2016.
Anil s/o Namdeorao Therkar,
Aged about major, Occu - Service,
resident of c/o. Yadavrao Poshattiwar
Arts College, Talhodi, Tq. Nagbhid,
District Chandrapur. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Principal Secretary, Higher
and Technical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director of Higher Education
State of Maharashtra, Pune.
3. The Joint Director of Higher Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
4. Shri Yadavrao Poshattiwar Arts College
Talhodi, Through its Principal, Talhodi,
Tq. Nagbhid, District Chandrapur. ....RESPONDENTS
.
::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2017 00:43:25 :::
Judgment wp4911.16
2
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 4905 OF 2016.
Vivek s/o Tulshiram Maske,
Aged about 44, Occu - Service,
resident of c/o. Yadavrao Poshattiwar
Arts College, Talhodi, Tq. Nagbhid,
District Chandrapur. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Principal Secretary, Higher
and Technical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director of Higher Education
State of Maharashtra, Pune.
3. The Joint Director of Higher Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
4. Shri Yadavrao Poshattiwar Arts College
Talhodi, Through its Principal, Talhodi,
Tq. Nagbhid, District Chandrapur. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mr. A.I. Sheikh, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. N. Rao, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2017 00:43:25 :::
Judgment wp4911.16
3
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : FEBRUARY 28, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
Heard Shri A.I. Sheikh, learned Counsel for petitioners, Shri N.
Rao, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri B.G. Kulkarni,
learned Counsel for respondent no.4. By their consent Writ Petitions are
taken up for final disposal by issuing Rule, making the same returnable
forthwith.
2. Office of respondent no.3 has refused approval to - services of
petitioner Anil as lecturer in Economics and services of petitioner as Vivek as
lecturer in History, on the ground that they did not satisfy UGC qualification
at the time of their employment. Shri Sheikh, learned counsel for
petitioners and Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for management submits that
the controversy is concluded in favour of petitioners in the light of
Resolution No.3 of UGC in its 471st meeting held on 12.08.2010. Shri
Sheikh, learned counsel relies upon judgment dated 20.10.2010 in Writ
Petition No. 357/2010, dated 13.06.2014 in Writ Petition Nos. 1524 and
Judgment wp4911.16
1525 of 2014, in case of these petitioners, to contend that this Court has
then found them duly qualified.
3. Learned A.G.P. do not dispute the earlier orders of this Court.
However, he submits that after college started receiving grants, and when
the papers were examined management itself has communicated that there
was vacancies in the subject of Economics and History. As there was
vacancy, facts being pressed before this Court into service appear to be
incorrect. According to him, as vacancy appears to have been filled in
subsequently, the procedure has not been followed.
4. Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel at this stage sought time to file
reply. According to him, though proper procedure was followed, vacancies
may have been not shown as filled in for administrative purpose. He
requested the court to grant management time to make a definite statement
on affidavit in this respect.
5. During hearing we find that neither petitioners nor management
was given opportunity of hearing by respondent no.3 while rejecting the
approval. In this situation, it will not be proper on our part to embark upon
any enquiry on factual dispute for the first time. Prima facie, it appears that
Judgment wp4911.16
petitioners are continuing in the employment.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners and management
point out that the approval to appointment was given by Gondwana
University. However, present problem has cropped during exercise of pay
fixation. The earlier services rendered by petitioners is not being considered
for that purpose. We find that there is no adverse order placed on record by
any of the petitioners pointing out this aspect. But, then from the
correspondence between respondents, it appears that the initial date of entry
into service i.e. w.e.f. 2003 is in dispute.
7. It appears that while considering the aspect of pay fixation,
defence that petitioners are not duly qualified, is also being raised by
respondent no.3.
8. We therefore, direct petitioners as also their management to
appear before respondent no.3 on 27.03.2017. Respondent no.3 shall hear
them, peruse necessary records and take suitable decision upon the issue of
approval and pay fixation within a period of next two months. Needless to
mention that the date on which college of respondent no.4 started receiving
grants shall also be kept in mind while undertaking this exercise.
Judgment wp4911.16
9. Writ Petition is thus, partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the
aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
