Bombay High Court
Mrs.Latika Bonde vs Peoples Education Society And Ors on 24 March, 2021
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, C.V. Bhadang
skn 1 201.WP-4955.2000.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4955 OF 2000
Mrs.Latika Bonde,
residing at A-402, Vikas Apartment,
Santoshimata Mandir Road, Kalyan (West),
District Thane 421 301. ... Petitioner.
V/s.
1. Peoples Education Society,
through its Chairman having its office
at Anand Bhavan, Dr.D.N.Road, Fort,
Mumbai 400 023.
2. The Principal,
Sidharth College of Commerce and
Economics, Anand Bhavan, D.N.Road,
Fort, Mumbai 400 023.
3. University of Mumbai,
through its Registrar, D.N.Road,
Fort, Mumbai.
4. The Director of Technical and Higher
Technical Education, Mumbai.
5. State of Maharashtra
through its Department of Higher and
Technical Education, Mantralaya Annexe,
Mumbai 400 032. ... Respondents.
None for the Petitioner.
Mr.Rui Rodrigues for Respondent No.3.
Ms.K.N.Solunke, AGP for the State.
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2021 06:47:20 :::
skn 2 201.WP-4955.2000.doc
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND
C. V. BHADANG, JJ.
DATE : 24 March 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Nitin Jamdar, J.)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this writ petition, the Petitioner has sought a
direction to de-reserve the post occupied by him and upon such de-
reservation treat the Petitioner as confirmed Lecturer in
Mathematical and Statistical Techniques.
3. The Petitioner is M.Phil and M.Sc. First Class in
Mathematics. The Petitioner applied pursuant to an advertisement
and was selected by a duly constituted selection committee. She was
appointed in the college of Respondent No.1- institution as a
Lecturer in Mathematical and Statistical Techniques with effect from
14 September 1991. Again in the year 2000, two posts of Lecturers
in Mathematical and Statistical Techniques were advertised. One of
them was reserved for Schedule Caste candidate and other was
reserved for Other Backward Class. According to the Petitioner, the
post was advertised on more than five occasions and it is to be de-
reserved. According to the Petitioner, on 15 May 2000, the
Respondent- University wrote to Respondent No.2- Principal of the
College to de-reserve the post of the Petitioner. Since no further
action was taken, the Petitioner filed present petition.
skn 3 201.WP-4955.2000.doc
4. On 18 September 2000, by an interim order, the services
of the Petitioner were protected. By order dated 4 April 2001, Rule
was issued in the petition and the interim order was continued. The
writ petition was dismissed for default on 31 August 2004 since
none appeared for the Petitioner. It was restored on 24 September
2004. Again it was dismissed on 17 February 2005 and came to be
restored on payment of cost on 11 September 2009. Today, when
the petition is called out, none appears for the Petitioner. It is not
possible to keep adjourning the petition in the light of the fact that it
was twice dismissed and restored.
5. As regards the claim of the Petitioner that her post needs
to be de-reserved, the Division Bench, on 16 August 2012, has
passed the following order:
"Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned
Counsel for 2nd Respondent and learned AGP for 4th and 5th
Respondents.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner on the
last date had invited our attention to communications issued
by the University of Mumbai to the Management of
Siddharth College, Bombay, the last such communication
being dated 15th May, 2000. We directed the learned Counsel
for 2nd Respondent to take instructions as regards the said
communications. On instructions, he states that if a direction
is issued by this Court, the Management will submit a
proposal for de-reservation of the post held by the Petitioner.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed
out that from the letter dated 27 th July, 2011 sent by 2nd
Respondent to the Petitioner, it is revealed that though the
skn 4 201.WP-4955.2000.doc
college submitted salary bill for the month of July, 2011 to the
office of the Director of Technical and Higher Education,
Mumbai Division, the same was not accepted. He stated that
as a result of non-acceptance of the salary bill, the Petitioner
has not been paid salary since July, 2011 though his
employment was protected under the interim order of the
Court.
4. We direct 2nd Respondent to submit a proposal for de-
reservation of the post held by the Petitioner in accordance
with law. The proposal shall be submitted within a period of
four weeks from today.
5. The concerned Authorities shall consider the said
proposal and take appropriate decision thereon within a
period of six weeks from the date on which the proposal is
received.
6. We direct 2nd Respondent to submit salary bills of the
salary payable to the Petitioner from July, 2011 onwards to the
Office of the Director of Technical and Higher Education,
Mumbai Division, Mumbai. As there is an interim relief
granted in this Petition protecting the employment of the
Petitioner, we direct the office of the Director of Technical
and Higher Education, Mumbai Division, Mumbai to accept
the bills and process the same in accordance with law.
7. Concerned parties to act upon an authenticated copy of
this order. The Petition shall be placed for further hearing on
29th October, 2012."
Thereafter civil applications have been filed and affidavits of the
Respondent- University and the State are taken on record. The Joint
Director of Higher Education, Mumbai in the affidavit dated 28
October 2013 has stated that only after the University of Mumbai
submits proposal for de-reservation of the post with all necessary
skn 5 201.WP-4955.2000.doc
documents, it will be possible for the Sate to complete the process of
de-reservation. The learned AGP reiterates the stand taken in the
affidavit. The learned counsel for the Respondent- University
submits that necessary documents have already been supplied and
the decision now should be taken by the State Government. It is
not possible for us to adjudicate upon whether necessary documents
as sought for by the State Government are supplied by the
University and the Respondent- College as this cannot be a center
point of adjudication. Even if the University has submitted the
documents, there is no impediment to re-submit the same so that
further time in adjudication would be curtailed. It will be proper if
the Joint Director informs the University and the Respondent-
College the details of the documents that are required and direction
is given to Respondent No.3- University and Respondent No.2-
College to submit the documents within a time bound period for a
reasoned decision to be taken. In the meanwhile, the protection
given to the Petitioner by orders dated 18 September 2000 and 16
August 2012 can continue. In light therefore, the petition is
disposed of with the following order.
(i) The Joint Director of Higher Education, Mumbai will address
a communication to the Respondent No.3- University and, if
required to Respondent No.2- College within a period of six
weeks giving details of the documents required;
(ii) As informed ,the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 that, if necessary,
the documents which need to be annexed in the Petitioner's
skn 6 201.WP-4955.2000.doc
case with the proposal for de-reservation will be submitted to
the Respondent- University within a period of six weeks after
the communication so received;
(ii) The University will submit the proposal for de-reservation to
the Respondent- State with the documents asked for within a
period of six weeks thereafter;
(iii) The Joint Director of Higher Education will take a decision in
respect of de-reservation and communicate the outcome to the
Petitioner, Respondent- University and the Respondent-
College;
(iv) Till such decision is communicated, the direction contained in
the interim order dated 18 September 2000 and direction
contained in paragraph-6 of the order dated 16 August 2012
reproduced as above to continue;
(v) Needless to state that in case the decision is adverse to the
Petitioner in respect of de-reservation, it will be open to the
Petitioner to take necessary steps.
6. Writ petition and pending civil applications are disposed
of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(C.V. BHADANG, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
