Allowed

Mukund Dhanaji Kadam v. the Principal-Sadguru Ghadage Maharaj College and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Apr 2006WP/6357/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed the termination of the petitioner's employment in an educational institution, relying on precedents regarding the validity of specific General Regulations. The court directed reinstatement and payment of back wages.

What did the court decide?

Termination quashed and set aside; petitioner directed to be reinstated; management directed to refer case to University for next steps and pay back wages.

Mukund Dhanaji Kadam Vs the Principal-Sadguru… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO. 6357 OF 2004

¶4

 Shri Mukund Dhanaji Kadam ... Petitioner

¶5

V/s

¶6

 The Principal,
 Sadguru Ghadage Maharaj College,
 Karad & ors. ... Respondents

¶7

 Shri Dilip Bodake for the petitioner.

¶8

 Shri Prashant Patil with R.V. More for the respondent
 Nos. 1 & 2.

¶9

CORAM: P.V. KAKADE, J.
DATED: 13TH APRIL, 2006

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

 1. Heard learned counsel for both parties. Perused
 the record.

¶12

 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶13

 3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged
 the order dated 18.3.2004 passed by the Presiding
 Officer, Pune/Shivaji University and College Tribunal,
 Pune, in Appeal No. 9 of 2003 whereby the appeal was
 dismissed and order of termination dated 30.4.2003 was

¶14

¶15

 confirmed.

¶16

 4. It appears from the record that the petitioner was
 selected by duly constituted Selection Committee and,
 was appointed subject to passing of NET/SET Examination.
 In this regard, without further elaboration, it must be
 noted that the issue involved in this matter is squarely
 covered by the number of judgments of this Court of
 Division Bench as well as Single Bench of this Court.

¶17

 5. In Writ Petition No. 5782 of 2001, the Division
 Bench passed order dated 18.4.2002 which was decided
 relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court
 at Aurangabad Bench holding that the G.R. dated
 18.10.2001 was legal and valid except the fact that
 clause 2(b) thereof is held unsustainable and,
 therefore, it was quashed and set aside and as a
 consequence of this setting aside the terminations
 effected by the various managements have become
 unsustainable. The said judgements were followed by
 another Division Bench of this Court while passing the
 order dated 9.12.2003 in Writ Petition No. 3929 of 2002
 which was again followed by the Single Bench judgment in

¶18

 the case of M.G.Shirnatti, The Principal, Lajpatrai
College of Commerce, Mumbai & anr. v/s Purnima Sharma &

¶19

¶20

ors., reported in 2004 II C.L.R. 623.

¶21

 The ratio laid down by the said judgments is seen to be
 applicable mutatis-mutandis to the present set of facts
 involved in this case.

¶22

 6. Hence, the rule is made absolute and the petition is
 disposed of with no order as to costs with following
 directions:-

¶23

 The order of termination of employment of the petitioner
 is quashed and set aside and the management is further
 directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. The
 management is further directed to refer the case of the
 petitioner to the University within four months. The
 University shall process the same and forward the same
 to the authority under University Grant Commission
 within four months thereafter and University Grant
 Commission shall take decision within four months of
 receiving the request from the management. The
 management is directed to pay back wages to the
 petitioner. It is clarified that the management will at
 liberty to seek grant in aid in relation on that count
 if it has not been already done and utilized it for the
 replacement.

¶24

Mukund Dhanaji Kadam v. the Principal-Sadguru Ghadage Maharaj College and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukund Dhanaji Kadam v. the Principal-Sadguru Ghadage Maharaj College and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Indian Bank Vs Bharat Champaklal Lalwani and Anr.

Bhairam S.Singh and Ors. Vs Shivshankar Gokula Singh and Anr.

Panshilla Electric Company Vs Jessie Louis Castellino

Harischandra Daji Chindarkar Vs Raut Pandit Namdeo and Ors.

Harish Virumal Milani and Ors. Vs Prabhakar Trimbak Purandare

Gokhale Education Society and Anr. Vs Datta Shirsagar and Anr.