Bombay High Court
Mrs. Srabani Bhattacharya W/O ... vs Thane Municipal Corporation Thr. ... on 9 December, 2022
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre, Sharmila U. Deshmukh
(25)-WP-8372-21.doc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by
BALAJI
BALAJI GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL Date:
2022.12.13
10:28:26
WRIT PETITION NO.8372 OF 2021
+0530
Dr. (Mrs.) Srabani Bhattacharya
(w/o Nitish Kumar Bhattacharya) ..Petitioner
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation & Ors. ..Respondents
Mr. Rahul Walia, for the Petitioner.
Mr. N. R. Bubna i/by Mandar Limaye, for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. S. M. Oak, Senior Advocate i/by Sagar Joshi, for the Respondent
No.3.
Mr. Ganesh Gole, for the Respondent No.4/NMC.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 9th DECEMBER, 2022
P.C.
1. Heard.
2. Challenge in the petition is to the order dated 8 th
October, 2021 passed by respondent No.2/Dean of a medical college
which is run and managed by respondent No.1/Corporation.
3. The petitioner holding M.Sc. Ph.D. qualification in
Physiology was appointed as professor in August, 2014. However,
while she was holding post of Associate Professor, the charge of
head of the department (HOD) was given to her in January, 2012.
Since January, 2012, the petitioner continued holding charge of
BGP. 1 of 3
(25)-WP-8372-21.doc.
head of department of Physiology till the date of passing of the
order impugned.
4. By way of impugned order, the charge of head of the
department is ordered to be handed over to respondent No.3 who
holds MD qualification in Physiology.
5. The contention of the petitioner is, the petitioner is
continued in the position of head of the department in the capacity
of professor of Physiology since 2012 uninterruptedly. Even the
regulation of 1998 does not put an embargo on the right of the
petitioner to continue on said post but for the impugned
communication. Reliance is placed on the statistics/approval
granted to the post of the petitioner on the post of head of the
department by the competent authority.
6. The respondents have opposed the prayer, as according
to them, the post of HOD has to be manned by a person having
minimum qualification of MBBS which the petitioner doesn't
possess. It is also brought to our notice that there were objections
from MCI and MUHS which have prompted the respondent No.2 to
direct handing over charge of post of HOD to the respondent No.3.
7. Prima-facie what can be noticed is, the order of directing
handing over of charge of the post of HOD is without there being
any notice of hearing to the petitioner. Apart from above, this Court
is required to be sensitive to the fact that the petitioner remained in
BGP. 2 of 3
(25)-WP-8372-21.doc.
charge of the post of HOD of Physiology consistently since 2012 and
it is only in 2021 perhaps based on the certain objections by the MCI
which are not communicated to the petitioner the charge is being
sought to be removed.
8. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn support from the
judgment of Punjab and Hariyana High Court in the matter of Pro.
C. S. Gautam & Anr. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors. in
CWP No.19265 of 2016 delivered on 22nd February, 2019, so as to
claim that even the person is holding M. Sc. Ph.D qualification
(other than basic MBBS as is provided in 1998 regulation of MCI
Act) can be said to be qualified to hold the post of HOD. Prima-
facie, there appears to be substance in the submission of the
petitioner as petitioner is continued on the said post from 2012 till
this date.
9. As such, Rule.
10. The impugned order dated 8th October, 2021 shall
remain stayed. As a consequence, the petitioner is continued on the
post of HOD of Physiology (non-clinical post).
11. Counsels for respondents waive notice on behalf of their
respective parties.
[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
BGP. 3 of 3
