Bombay High Court
Anil Chamadia S/O Late Ramgopal ... vs Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya ... on 30 September, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, G. A. Sanap
Judgment 1 224.wp.1466.2010.judg.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.1466 OF 2010
Shri Anil Chamadia
S/o. Late Ramgopal Chamadia
Aged 48 Yrs., Occu.: Journalist,
R/o. C-2, Pipal Wala Mohalla,
Badli Extension, Delhi-42 .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya
Hindi Vishwavidyalaya,
Through its Registrar, Panchteela,
Umari, Wardha -442001
2. The Vice Chancellor,
Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya
Hindi Vishwavidyalaya, Panchteela,
Umari, Wardha -442001
3. The Chancellor,
Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya
Hindi Vishwavidyalaya, Panchteela,
Umari, Wardha -442001
4. The Union of India.
Through its Secretary,
Human Resource Development,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110001 .... RESPONDENTS
___________________________________________________________________
Mr P. D. Meghe, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr A. C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1to 3
Mr N. S. Deshpande, DSGI for respondent No. 4
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
G. A. SANAP, JJ.
DATED : 30.09.2022
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
1] Heard.
Judgment 2 224.wp.1466.2010.judg.odt
2] In our order, dated 26.07.2019 we have noted in detail the
necessity of the response to be given by the Human Resources Ministry
by referring to the requirement of Clause 19(6) of the Statutes of the
University framed under Section 27 of the Mahatma Gandhi
Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1996.
3] In this case, the case of the petitioner has been
recommended by the Selection Committee, duly constituted under the
Act, for he being appointed to the post of Professor. It is not in dispute
that whenever such direct appointment to the post of Professor is to be
made, the acceptance of the recommendations of the Selection
Committee by the Vice Chancellor is subject to the approval of the
Executive Council of the University. Clause 19(c) of the Statute of the
University shows that discretion has been given to the Executive
Council to accept the recommendations of the Selection Committee or
reject those recommendations but, in case the Executive Council
decides to not grant approval to such an appointment, the confirmation
from the Visitor i.e. the President of India is required and the rejection
of the approval must be accompanied by reasons recorded in writing.
Here, it is the case of the University that the refusal to accord approval
to the appointment of the petitioner as Professor in University has been
forwarded by the University already to the Visitor, the President of
Judgment 3 224.wp.1466.2010.judg.odt
India but, no response so far has been received from the office of
President of India and this is the reason why the issue of appointment
of the petitioner to the post of Professor has remained pending.
4] Shri N. S. Deshpande, learned Deputy Solicitor General of
India submits that he is making every effort to seek proper instructions
from the Human Resources Ministry but, till date he has received no
response from the Ministry. Much time has gone by since the
University as well as this Court are waiting for the appropriate
response to be received from the Human Resources Ministry.
Considering the pendency of this matter for very long period of time,
we have decided to examine the basic issue involved in this case from
fresh perspective.
5] Accordingly, we have carefully perused the order of
rejection of the approval to the appointment of the petitioner as
Professor, passed by the Executive Council, dated 25.01.2010, which is
the order impugned in this petition. On re-examination of this order,
we find that this order is not in conformity with the requirements of
Clause 19(6) of the Statutes of the University in the sense that it does
not record any proper reasons for rejecting the approval to the
Judgment 4 224.wp.1466.2010.judg.odt
appointment of the petitioner as Professor. Therefore, this order,
impugned herein, is bad in law and it is deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
6] Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed.
7] The minutes of meeting of the Executive Council dated
13.01.2010, to the extent they refuse to grant approval to the
appointment of the petitioner as Professor, is quashed and set aside.
The impugned order, which is consequential order, is also hereby
quashed and set aside.
8] The matter is remanded back to the Executive Council for
its fresh consideration of the issue in accordance with law. The
Executive Council shall take its decision in the matter as early as
possible preferably within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the
order.
9] In case the Executive Council decides to grant approval to
the appointment of the petitioner as Professor, the University shall take
appropriate decision regarding payment of salary, arrears of salary and
other consequential benefits to the petitioner at the earliest. However,
if the Executive Council does not decide to grant its approval to the
Judgment 5 224.wp.1466.2010.judg.odt
appointment of the petitioner, the Executive Council shall record its
reasons and follow the procedure prescribed under Clause 19(6) of
the Statutes of the University framed under Section 27 of the Mahatma
Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1996.
10] Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(G. A. SANAP, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
Namrata
Signed By:NAMRATA YOGESH
DHARKAR
P. A.
High Court Nagpur
Signing Date:01.10.2022 10:25
