Bombay High Court
Kishor Sudhakar Wankhede vs Shri Motiramji Thakare Shikshan ... on 20 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 wp4458.13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4458/2013
Kishor Sudhakar Wankhede,
aged about 40 years, r/o Laxmi Vihar
Colony, Kulkarni Layout, Akola Road,
Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim, 444 403. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. Shri Motiramji Thakare Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal, Kasola, through
its Secretary, At Kasola, Tq. Mangrulpir,
Dist. Washim.
2. Yashwantrao Chavan Arts & Science
Mahavidyalaya, Mangrulpir, through
its Principal, Mangrulpir, Dist.
Washim-444 403.
3. Assistant Commissioner (Backward Class
Cell), Amravati Division, Amravati.
4. Joint director of Higher Education,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
5. Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University,
Amravati, through its Registrar,
Amravati - 444 602. ...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sachin Khandekar, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri S. Ghatole, Advocate holding for Shri F. T. Mirza, Advocate for
respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Shri V. A. Thakare, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED :-
MARCH 20, 2017
2 wp4458.13.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : V. M. Dshpande, J.)
1. Heard Shri Sachin Khandekar, the learned counsel for
the petitioner, Shri V.A.Thakare, the learned Asstt. Government
Pleader and Shri S. Ghatole, Advocate holding for Shri F. T. Miza,
The learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and the
learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
None appears for the respondent no.5-Sant Gadge Baba Amravati
University, though served.
2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner is
challenging the action on the part of the respondent no.3 in
disapproving the appointment of the petitioner after a lapse of 14
years of his appointment, on the ground that at the time of making
the appointment, the roster point was not adhered to. The
petitioner is also challenging the communication dated
10.06.2013, which is addressed to the respondent no.2, which
states that proper selection process was not followed while
granting appointment to the petitioner as full time lecturer from
part time lecturer.
3 wp4458.13.odt
3. Much of the facts in the present petition are not in
dispute. On 24.08.1998, after obtaining approval and nod from
the respondent no.5-University, the respondent no.2 published an
advertisement for filling the post of Lecturer in various subjects on
the part time basis.
4. Admittedly, duly constituted selection committee
conducted the interview of the petitioner who applied for the said
post in pursuance of the said advertisement issued by the
respondent no.2. The selection committee selected the petitioner
as part time lecturer in Mathematics. What is worth to note is that
the selection committee for making the appointments on posts of
part time as well as full time lecturers is one and the same.
5. On 13.03.1999, the appointment of the petitioner was
duly approved by the respondent no.5-University.
In the meantime, in view of increase in the strength of
the students, the post of part time lecturer in the Mathematics was
upgradaded to that of full time lecturer. It is worth to mention
here that there is a Government Resolution dated 08.08.1996
which provides that if a person is appointed as part time lecturer
4 wp4458.13.odt
after following the due procedure, he could be accommodated as
full time lecturer and for that no fresh selection process is required
to be undertaken.
6. In view of the said Government Resolution, the
petitioner was appointed as full time lecturer on 01.07.1999. The
necessary approval to the petitioner's appointment as full time
lecturer in Mathematics was granted by the respondent no.5 on
01.09.1999. From 1999 till the impugned communication, at no
point of time the University or other respondents raised any
grievance that at the time of initial appointment of the petitioner,
roster point was not followed by the management.
7. This Court had, on 23.06.2014, granted interim relief
in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner is continuously
working as full time lecturer in Mathematics in the respondent
no.2-College. It is not the case either of the management or of the
university that the petitioner is lacking basic educational
qualification. It is further not the case of the management that the
petitioner has not discharged his duties to the satisfaction of the
management.
5 wp4458.13.odt
8. Looking to the fact that the petitioner has rendered
more than 15 years of service, it will be too harsh on the part of
the respondents to disapprove his appointment on the ground that
at the time of his initial appointment as full time lecturer, roster
point was not considered by the management.
9. It is to be noted that while granting approval as full
time lecturer in the year 1999, it was not the case of any of the
respondents that there was a backlog in the respondent no.2-
College. Had there been a backlog, the respondent no.4 ought not
to have granted approval in favour of the petitioner.
10. In that view of the matter, the present petition needs to
be allowed. Accordingly, rule is made absolute in terms of the
prayer clauses (A) and (B). There shall be no order as to costs.
(V. M. Deshpande, J.) (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
kahale
