Anjali Chandrakant Hastak And Ors vs The State Of Maharastra Thr Its ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1019 Bom

                                                      908-ASWP-15653-2022.DOC




 Ashwini V



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 15653 OF 2022


 Dr Anjali Chandrakant Hastak & Ors                                 ...Petitioners
      Versus
 The State of Maharashtra & Anr                                   ...Respondents


 Mr Tejesh Dande, a/w Rajendra Anbhule a/w Bharat Gadhavi a/w
      Vishal Navale i/b Tejesh Dande & Asso for the Petitioners.
 Mrs AA Purav AGP, for the Respondent No.1-State.


                               CORAM     G.S. Patel &
                                         Dr Neela Gokhale, JJ.

                               DATED:    31st January 2023
 PC:-

1. The 30 petitioners are all principals of various colleges. They challenge, in this petition filed on 20th November 2022, a Government Resolution dated 12th July 2016 at Exhibit "C" and Corrigendum of 28th October 2016 at Exhibit "E". The principal grounds of challenge are in paragraph No. 10 to 18 of the petition. Mr Dande submits that the GR and Corrigendum create a hostile and invidious discrimination between the Petitioners and others similarly placed. The classification is irrational and there is no reasonable nexus between the classification and the object for the purpose of GR and its corrigendum.

31st January 2023

908-ASWP-15653-2022.DOC

2. We will of course have to hear the only two Respondents, the State of Maharashtra and the Directorate of Higher Education fully at a later date once the Affidavit in Reply is filed.

3. M. Dande presses for ad-interim protection for Petitioner Nos. 21 and 26 on the ground that they are to retire today. He submits that their service should be protected. The effect of the impugned GR and the corrigendum is to reduce the retirement age to 60 years from 62 years. It was initially increased to 62 years from 58 years.

4. We do not think it is not possible to accede to this request. There is, to begin with, a very serious question about the delay on part of the petitioners. This delay of six years is entirely unexplained. Paragraph 18 of the petition points out that an educational institute in Pune, the famous Indian Law Society, challenges the same GR in a Writ Petition No.1021 of 2017. On 30th January 2017, a Division Bench granted protection. If this be so, then there is really no explanation at all for the delay on the part of these 30 Petitioners in approaching this Court only in 2022.

5. But the Petitioners' problems do not end there. None of their colleges are joined as Respondents to the petition. We do not know whether these colleges are aided, partly aided or entirely unaided. When Mr Dande seeks protection, he effectively says that the services of these two petitioners Nos. 21 and 26 (and presumably others who may be in the retirement pipeline while the petition is pending) should be allowed to continue in service with all benefits

31st January 2023

908-ASWP-15653-2022.DOC

including salary. If the college is unaided, then this financial burden would fall upon the college. If the college is aided, then the financial burden would be on the Government. We also do not know whether the colleges themselves have, in view of the GR and the Corrigendum, already started taking steps to fill the imminent vacancies to the post of the principal. It may even be that these very principals who are due to retire are part of the process of selecting a successor principal.

6. Last but not least, we are unable to understand how petition like this can be filed at the principal seat. There are petitioners who are in colleges in Nagpur, Barshi, Chandrapur, Yavatmal, Latur, Amravati, etc. There is no explanation as to how this Bench would be able to hear the cases of petitioners from areas outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat. There is certainly no administrative order clubbing separate petitions from different Benches and assigning them to a particular Bench, a matter that is purely within the administrative discretion of the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice as the master of the roster.

7. The learned AGP seeks time to file the detailed Affidavit-in- Reply. She placed reliance inter alia on a judgment and order dated 6th July 2017 passed by the Division Bench of the Aurangabad Bench (SV Gangapurwala J, as he then was, and Sangitrao S Patil J) on 6th June 2017 in the case of Professor Dr Yeshwant Kondji Khillare and Ors v State of Maharashtra.1 She submits that a subsequent group of petitions (Dr Jose v State of Maharashtra) was dismissed by

1 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9477 : (2017) 5 Mah LJ 825 : (2018) 3 Bom CR

652.

31st January 2023

908-ASWP-15653-2022.DOC

another Division Bench at the principal seat on 2nd August 2017 (BR Gavai J as he then was and Riyaz I Chagla, J). Those petitions were dismissed. Mr Dande submits that both these orders can be distinguished on the facts of the cases. Even if that be so, there is still no explanation for the delay of six years in approaching the Court.

8. For these reasons, we decline to grant ad-interim relief.

9. Affidavit-in-Reply to be filed by 17th February 2023. Rejoinder is permitted by 3rd March 2023.

10. List the petition peremptorily for final disposal, given the question of law but subject to the petitioners obtaining the necessary directions on the administrative side on the jurisdictional aspect and the assignment of the petition to this Court, on 17th March 2023 at 2.30 p.m.

(Dr Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J)

31st January 2023