Bombay High Court
Gangadhar Rangdeo Daigavhane vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. And ... on 16 March, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp4199.12
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 4199 OF 2012.
Gangadhar Rangdeo Daigavhane,
Aged about 60 years, resident of
161, Unique Society, Chiranjeevi
Nagar, Narendra Nagar, Nagpur
- 440015. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Higher and Technical
Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. Joint Director of Higher Education
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. F.E.S. Girls College, Chandapur
through its Principal,
Ankaeshwar Gate, Chandrapur.
4. Female Education Society, Chandrapur
through its President,
resident of c/o. F.E.S. Girls College,
Chandrapur, Ankaeshwar Gate,
Chandrapur.
5. Gondwana University, Gadchiroli,
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2017 00:55:20 :::
Judgment wp4199.12
2
through its Registrar, Complex MIDC Road,
Gadchiroli 442605.
6. Performance Review Committee
through its Director,
Board of College and University Development
Gondwana University,
Complex MIDC Road, Gadchiroli. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mr. S. Khandekar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. B.M. Lonare, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Anjan De, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 16, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
Head Shri S. Khandekar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Shri
B.M. Lonare, learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Anjan De,
learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. None appears for respondent
nos. 5 and 6. Respondent no.5 has filed reply-affidavit.
Judgment wp4199.12
2. Petitioner was working as an Associate Professor with respondent
nos. 3 and 4. He reached age of 60 years on 31.03.2012 and thereafter 62
years on 31.03.2014. He has filed present petition on 13.08.2012 for
continuation upto 62 years of age by placing reliance upon government
resolutions dated 05.03.2011, 23.11.2011 and 23.02.2012.
3. Today we have disposed of writ Petition No. 1575/2011 (Walmik
V. Bhasme .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others), in which we have looked
into these three government resolutions. Present petition has been placed
along with that Writ Petition as a connected matter for hearing.
4. Performance Review Committee has scrutinized the performance
of petitioner by applying the norms as stipulated in above mentioned
government resolutions on 11.04.2012. Perusal of said evaluation reveals
that against the question, as to how many research papers are submitted by
the petitioner in Work shops/Seminars, at Sr.No.VI, it is mentioned that two
certificates were enclosed, however, those certificates are discarded on the
ground that the research papers themselves were not made available.
5. We find substance in the contention of petitioner that the
Performance Review Committee was not to sit in appeal on those research
Judgment wp4199.12
papers, and therefore, fact of some publication was sufficient. Proof of such
publication was available to the Committee. We therefore, find that test at
Sr.No. VI has been wrongly answered in case of present petitioner
6. In so far as the test VII is concerned, in the information furnished
by the petitioner, he has stated that he has participated in 17 Debates,
Workshops, Seminars. Finding recorded against it is 'Nil' and reason
therefor is not apparent.
7. Against norm No.VIII which requires information about
publication of text books or reference books and inclusion thereof in
syllabus, the petitioner has pointed out that his book was about to be
published. He submitted a letter of publisher in respect thereof. This letter
of publisher has not been accepted and norm has been shown as not
complied with. However, in case of other employee Dr. L.V. Shende, such
letter of publisher has been accepted and positive remark has been given in
favour of Shri Shende. Thus, there is discrimination in the matter.
8. Coming to norm nos. XI and XII, it appears that the government
resolution dated 23.02.2012 infact has deleted said norms and in is place
information as to receipt of prizes, awards or certificate in National, State
Judgment wp4199.12
Level events is to be furnished. According to petitioner he has given total 5
such certificates. This submission is supported by affidavit in paragraph
no.29 of the Writ Petition.
9. Perusal of reply/affidavit filed by respondent nos. 5 and 6 does not
show consideration of deletion of norm nos. XI and XII [supra], or then
prescription of new standards/norms in its place. Fact that petitioner has
submitted 5 such certificates and the same are not evaluated by the
Performance Review Committee also therefore, does not figure in this reply-
affidavit.
10. In this situation, we find that interest of justice can be met with by
directing respondent no.6 - Committee and respondent no.5 - University to
arrange for and to hold fresh review of Performance of petitioner in terms
of the government resolutions mentioned supra. This exercise shall be
completed within a period of four months from today. If necessary,
opportunity of hearing shall be extended to the petitioner.
11. If in fresh review, petitioner is found fit and therefore, should have
been continued upto 62 years of his age, his eligibility and entitlement to
consequential benefits shall be looked into by the University as per law in its
Judgment wp4199.12
discretion.
12. With liberty to petitioner to approach again if his grievance is not
redressed or any other cause of action arises, we partly allow the Writ
Petition and dispose of the same. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid
terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
