Bombay High Court
Vivek Ramchandra Vishwarupe vs Sant Gadge Baba Amravati ... on 16 December, 2021
Bench: V. G. Joshi
1 2 speaking to minutes
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1396 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 7300 OF 2017
Vivek Ramchandra Vishwarupe
..vs..
Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Amravati, thr. The Vice Chancellor and ors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.V. Samarth, Senior Advocate a/w Shri S.S. Bhalerao,
Advocate for applicant.
Ms. K.K. Pathak, Advocate for non-applicant/respondent no.1.
Shri Pruthu Abhyankar, Advocate for non-applicant/respondent
nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE AND VINAY JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 16/12/2021
Heard Shri M.V. Samarth, learned Senior
Counsel with Shri S.S. Bhalerao, learned Counsel for
the applicant, Ms. K.K. Pathak, learned Counsel for
non-applicant No.1, Shri Pruthu Abhyankar, learned
Counsel for non-applicant/respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. This is an application for speaking to minutes
with a prayer which reads as below : -
"The petitioner therefore prays that the
typographical mistake in the last line of Para 4
of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on
08.01.2019 which reads as under,
"Petitioner was the only candidate for
interview for the post of Principal, the position
has 'not' become irreversible."
2 2 speaking to minutes
May be corrected and allowed to be
read as under ,
"petitioner was the only candidate for
interview for the post of principal, position has
'now' become irreversible.""
3. This application is made under assumption
that this Court has mistakenly mentioned the word
"not" in place of "now" in paragraph 4 of the order
dated 08.01.2019.
4. Initially, Writ Petition No. 7300 of 2017 was
filed raising a challenge to the report of the Scrutiny
Committee constituted for fixing an Academic
Performance Indicator (API score). The requisite score
qualifying for the post of Principal was 400, however,
the Scrutiny Committee has assessed the petitioner's
score as 320. Being aggrieved by such wrong
calculation of API score, the petitioner has principally
come to this Court. It was urged that while calculating
API score, the Scrutiny Committee in total disregard to
the 4th amendment of the University Grants
Commission (UGC) vide notification dated 11.07.2016,
calculated API score. This Court while deciding Writ
Petition has accepted the petitioner's stand that API
score was not calculated in accordance with the
direction No. 6 of 2017 read with 4th amendment of
UGC notification dated 11.07.2016. With such a
principle finding, this Court has set aside the entire
process of Selection Committee with a liberty to the
respondents to conduct fresh selection process. Not
3 2 speaking to minutes
only that the Court expressed to conduct fresh process
once, but it has expressed twice in paragraphs 4 and 5
of the judgment.
5. In such a backdrop, the petitioner states that
in last line of paragraph 4, the word "not" has been
mistakenly typed in place of the word "now". While
granting relief and directing respondents to conduct
fresh process, this Court expressed that the position
has not became irreversible and therefore, the
direction for fresh process was issued. Had it been the
fact that it was in the mind of Court, that position has
now became irreversible, then it would not have
directed to have a fresh process. Thus, the word "not"
which is sought to be replaced has been consciously
mentioned which is in-consonance with the
observations and directions of this Court.
6. Pertinent to note that the Writ Petition was
disposed of on 08.01.2019. Thereafter, in pursuance of
permission granted by this Court, the Management has
commenced a fresh process by way of an
Advertisement. Having been noting of commencement
of fresh process, the petitioner has filed Contempt
Petition No.265 of 2019 seeking contempt for the
reason that fresh process was commenced against the
order of the Court. This Court while disposing the
Contempt Petition, has once again expressed that there
was no contempt in initiating fresh process. On such
expression, the Contempt Petition came to be
withdrawn. It can be easily persuade that the clear
4 2 speaking to minutes
phraseology was used by this Court that, the position
has not became irreversible. In other words, it was
expressed that position has not become irreversible,
hence, directed to conduct fresh process.
7. It is argued that this Court ought to have
directed to properly calculate API score and to proceed
from that stage instead of directing fresh process. As a
matter of fact said relief was not granted, which
cannot be urged under the guise of speaking to
minutes by circumlocution. The petitioner after failure
in contempt petition has belatedly came for change of
word to suit his purpose.
8. In view of the above, We hold that there is no
error or ambiguity or typographical mistake in any
manner in the order passed by this Court. In short, the
application to that effect is absolutely without merits,
hence, stands rejected.
(VINAY JOSHI, J.) (V.M. DESHPANDE, J.)
Trupti
TRUPTI SANTOSHJI AGRAWAL
18.12.2021 17:48
