Allowed

Mrs. Deepa Gourang Murdeshwar Katre v. the Principal Vidyavardhini a.v.College of Arts

Bombay HC13 Apr 2005WP/1914/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dealt with a writ petition filed by a lecturer appointed eleven years ago on an interim basis due to unavailability of backward class candidates. The petition sought security of tenure against termination. The Court issued directions for the sixth advertisement based on interchangeability and directed the college to permit the petitioner to continue in service if no reserved candidate is

What did the court decide?

Directions issued for sixth advertisement under interchangeability; petitioner permitted to continue in post if no reserved candidate selected; Government permitted to decide on de-reservation without

Mrs. Deepa Gourang Murdeshwar Katre Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELATE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1914 OF 1999

¶4

 Mrs. Deepa Gourang Murdeshwar Katre
 108, Temple View, C.H.S.
 Behind Ram Mandir, Vartak Road
 Virar(W), Dist: Thane. ..Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

 1. The Principal
 Vadyavardhini Annasaheb Vartak
 College of Arts
 Kedarnath Malhotra College of Commerce
 E.S. Andrades College of Science
 Vasai Road, (W. Rly.)
 Tal: Vasai, Dist: Thane.

¶7

 2. The Secretary
 Vidyavardhini, Vasai Road.

¶8

 3. University of Bombay

¶9

 4. The State of Maharashtra
 Education Department
 Mantralaya, Mumbai ..Respondents
 -----
 Ms. S.V. Deshpande for Petitioner
 Mrs. S.S. Bhende, A.G.P. for Respondent No.4
 Mr. J.M. Chandankar for Respondent No.1
 Mr. R.A. Rodrigues with Mr. B.V. Phadnis for
 Respondent No.3

¶10

 CORAM: F.I. REBELLO &
S.P. KUKDAY, JJ.
 DATE: 13TH APRIL, 2005.

¶11

JUDGMENT (PER F.I. REBELLO, J.)

¶12

 . Petitioner was appointed in the Kedarnath
 College of Commerce as a Lecturer on 22nd November,
 1993 and was so working till the time the Petition
 was filed. The case of the Petitioner is that the
 Respondent College was advertising the post every

¶13

¶14

 year and in view of the non-availability of Backward
 Class candidates, were appointing the Petitioner for
 a period of one year----. Petitioner has relied
 upon various letters of appointment. It is the
 Petitioner’s case that considering various
 resolutions she addressed communication to College
 and University to de-reserve the post. No action
 was taken. The vacancy was existing from 1993. The
 Petitioner apprehended that once the post is
 advertised a third person would be appointed and her
 services will be terminated and consequently
 preferred the Petition praying for reliefs as set
 out therein. Rule was granted and also interim
 relief pursuant to which the College was restrained
 from advertising the post.

¶15

 2. On behalf of the University affidavit has
 been filed by Mr. D. Kamble, Deputy Registrar,
 Special Cell, University of Mumbai. In that
 reference is made to the letter received from
 Respondent No.1 in terms of directions issued by
 this Court on 9th August, 2000. The State
 Government has taken decision to deserve the post of
 Lecturer in English. It is further pointed out that
 University sent letter dated 27th April, 2004 to
 Respondent No.1 to fill up the above mentioned post
 by advertisement. The Respondent College was to
 send draft advertisement to the University for

¶16

¶17

 approval. The University has not yet received any
 information regarding draft advertisement with
 respect to the interchangeable clause which has to
 be issued in the sixth advertisement.

¶18

 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the

¶19

 parties and also considered the resolution for
 filling up reserved posts of Backward Class. A
 perusal of the said resolution would disclose that
 in a post meant for reserved category no open
 candidate can be appointed. It is only in the event
 a backward class candidate is not available then a
 candidate belonging to open category can be
 appointed. Such an advertisement has to be issued
 on five occasions. It is the case of the Petitioner

¶20

 that it has been so issued. In the sixth year the
 advertisement has to be based on interchangeability.
 In other words if the candidate from the reserved

¶21

 category is not available it can be filled in from
 another reserved category. However, before doing

¶22

 this the College must forward the draft
 advertisement to the University for

¶23

 interchangeability before the advertisement is

¶24

 issued and it can be issued only after approval by
 the University.

¶25

 . In the instant case that procedure had not
 been completed. The Petitioner however, is in the

¶26

¶27

 employment of Respondent since the year 1993 i.e.
 for nearly twelve years. Considering the above we
 can dispose of the Petition by issuing following
 directions:-

¶28

 (i). Respondent No.1 within four weeks
 from today to forward to Respondent No.2 a
 draft advertisement based on
 interchangeability. On the draft
 advertisement being received and after

¶29

 verifying the same and if earlier there had
 been five advertisement already issued the
 University to permit the Respondent No.1 to
 issue the advertisement based on
 interchangeability.

¶30

 (ii). If on the advertisement being issued
 no candidate from reserved candidate is
 available, Respondents to permit the
 Petitioner to continue in the post presently
 held by her.

¶31

 (iii). After the sixth advertisment, if no
 candidate belonging to the backward class is
 available, Respondent No.1 to send
 representation to Respondent no.3 to
 de-reserve the post. The University after
 complying with the procedure to forward the

¶32

¶33

 same to Respondent No.4.

¶34

 (iv). Respondent No.4 considering the
 clause for de-reservation and considering
 the judgment of this Court in Writ
 PetitionNo.1914 of 1999 dated 13th April,
 2005 which has taken a view that it is not
 necessary that after de-reservation, that
 post must be re-advertised but it is open to
 the Government to relax the condition, to
 take the appropriate decision and
 communicate the same to Respondent No.3.

¶35

 (v). The Petitioner pursuant to the sixth
 advertisement if no backward class candidate

¶36

 is selected to be continued and the
 Petitioner’s services will not be
 terminated. If the order be adverse it is
 not to be acted upon for a period of twelve
 weeks after the communication of the
 decision of Respondent No.4, by Respondent
 No.1 to the Petitioner.

¶37

 . Rule made absolute accordingly. There shall

¶38

 be no order as to costs.

¶39

(F.I.REBELLO,J.)

¶40

¶41

(S.P. KUKDAY,J.)

Mrs. Deepa Gourang Murdeshwar Katre v. the Principal Vidyavardhini a.v.College of Arts

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Deepa Gourang Murdeshwar Katre v. the Principal Vidyavardhini a.v.College of Arts

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogendrasingh Shivalangsingh Vs Head Master, Hindi Prachar Mandal'S High Scholl

Chandivali Abhilasha Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs Maharashtra Hsg. and Area Developement Authority

Chhotalal Hariram Trust and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Indira Yeshwant Patil and Ors. Vs Gajanan Shikshan Sanstha and Ors.

Major Padmanabha Anantrao Panditrao Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mrs. Beena Ninand Patil Vs the Principal, Vidyavardhini A.V. College of Arts