Quashed

Dhanashri Ramchandra Kapashilkar @ Sulbha Govind Moholkar v. the Administrator, Dalitmitra Kadam Guruji, Science and Arts College and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Oct 2006WP/6781/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed the University Collegiate Tribunal's judgment allowing an appeal against termination. The Tribunal failed to implead a lecturer claiming to be a necessary party. The appeal is remanded for a fresh hearing after adding the lecturer as an additional respondent.

What did the court decide?

Appeal removed for fresh hearing after advertising the vacancy and impleading the petitioner-lecturer as an additional respondent.

Dhanashri Ramchandra Kapashilkar @ Sulbha Govind… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4512 OF 2005

¶4

The Administrator ..Petitioner Vs. Bharat Bapu Bichitkar & Ors. ..Respondents

¶5

Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar for the Petitioner. Mr.N.V.Walawalkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.S.A.Sawant for Respondent No.1. Mr.G.S.Godbole with Mr.D.W.Bhosale for Respondent Nos.2 and 6. Mrs.M.P.Thakur, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.3 and 5.

¶6

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6781 OF 2005 Mrs.Dhanashri Ramchandra Kapashilkar Nee Ms.Sulbha Govind Moholkar ...Petitioner Vs. The Administrator and Others ...Respondents Mr.Sanjeev P.Kadam and Mr.Jagdish Choudhari for the Petitioner. Mr.G.S.Godbole with Mr.D.W.Bhosale for Respondent Nos.2 and 6. Mrs.M.P.Thakur,A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.4 and 5. Mr.N.V.Walwalkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.S.A.Sawant for Respondent No.7.

¶7

CORAM :- B.H.MARLAPALLE & NARESH H.PATIL , JJ. DATE : 7TH OCTOBER, 2006

¶8

P.C.
1.	Heard	. Rule. Respondents waive service.
2.	Both	these Petitions take exception to the
judgment	and	order rendered by the	Unive	rsity	and
College	Tribunal	at Pune in Appeal No.11	of	2003	on
5th	May, 2005,	which was filed by the	Res	pondent	No.1
in the	first P	etition, who has impleaded	as	Res	pondent
No.7	in the	second Petition. The Appeal	came	to	be

¶9

:2:

¶10

allowed	with	directio	ns t	o the Manageme	nt to	reinstate
the	Appellant	to	the	post of Lecture	r in	history
forthwith	and	pay	him	back wages from	the date	of
termination	of		his serv	ice, as alleged.	The	first
Petition	came	to	be	filed by the	Administrator	as
appointed	by	the	State	Government under	Section	3(1)
of	the	M	aharashtra	Educational In	stitutions	(Transfer
of Ma	nagement)	Act,	1971	and the rules	thereunder	from
Shikshan	Prasar	ak	Mand	al, Mangalwedha,	Tq.Man	galwedha,
which	runs	the	subject	college by name	Dalit	Mitra
Kadam	Guruji,		Science	& Arts College	at Ma	galwedha.
The	second	Pe	tition h	as been filed by	the	Lecturer,
who	claims	to	have	been appointed va	lidly by	the

¶11

Management in February,2000 and she was continued all

¶12

along in place of the original Appellant.

¶13

3.		The second Petitioner has cl	aimed that she was
a	necessary	party in the	Appeal before	the	T	ribunal
and	at no	point of time	she was implea	ded	in the	said
Appeal	and	was noticed	for being hear	d.	By	the
impugned	judgmen	t and order	she has be	en	displaced,	as
the	post	of Lecturer in	History was s	ingle	post	and
claims	that	the on the	reinstatement	of	the A	ppellant
she l	ikely to	lose her job	. Under	these	circum	stances
this	Court	(Single Bench)	directed not	to	te	rminate
the	Petitioner’s	service by	an order		dated	24th
October,2	005	and till then	the first	Petition	was	not
moved	for	admission, though	it was on	Board	on	14th
September	,2005 a	nd none was	present for	t	he Pe	titioner

:3:

impugn

the

Administerator. As both the Petitions

¶18

same order, they have been heard together by us, after

¶19

calling the Record and Proceedings from the Tribunal.

¶20

4. The documents placed on record in Writ
Petition No.6781 of 2005 have been perused by us	and
though as of now the tenure of the Administrator	of
six years, has already expired, the Petitioner	-
Lecturer was undoubtedly required tobe impleaded as	a
necessary party and she has made out a prima	facie
case before us that she was at the relevant time	i.e.
when the Appeal was filed before the Tribunal, in	the
employment of the said College. The parties are	at
logerheads as to whether there was only one	college
and/or there was any parallel college being run	by
Dr.Kadam, who was the acting Principal of the	subject
college i.e. Dalit Mitra Kadam Guruji Science	and
Arts College, Mangalwedha. Failure to afford	an
opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner in the	second
Petition certainly resulted in mis-carriage of	justice
and without going into the merits and demerits,	which
is required to be done by the Tribunal, we deem	it
appropriate to remand the Appeal for fresh decision	to
the Tribunal by quashing and setting aside	the
impugned order. It would be necessary that	the
Petitioner-Lecturer is impleaded as an Ad	ditional
Respondent in the Appeal filed by the Appellant	and
she will have to be allowed to file a reply.	The
Appellant as well as the Management will have to	file

¶21

:4:

¶22

their	counter, if	any,	and after heari	ng all	the
parties,	the Tribunal	will	have to decide	the	Appeal
afresh.	At the	same	time, both the	Petitioners	as
well	as the original	App	ellants claim to	be in	service
as a	t present.	It	was contended by	Mr.N.V.W	alawalkar,
the	learned Senior	Couns	el appearing for	the	Appellant
that	consequent to	the	impugned order p	assed by	the
Tribunal	he has	been	reinstated and	Mr.Kadam	the
learned	Counsel	app	earing for the	Petition	er-Lecturer
stated	that the	Petitio	ner has been al	l along	in
service	and has been		drawing her salary	regularly	from
the	very same	colleg	e. The Petitioner	-	Lecturer
claims	that the	Appe	llant is in employm	ent of	the
rival	college, which		has allegedly	been	started
illegally.	These iss	ues	can be gone	into by	the
Tribunal	and we need	not	deal with the	same, exc	ept to
state	that the status	-quo	as of now in	respect	of the

¶23

employment of both of them will have to be maintained.

¶24

5.		Hence,	the Petiti	ons suc	ceed part	ly and the
impugned		judgment	and	ord	er is	hereby quashed and	set
aside.		Appeal	No.11	of	2003	is restored to the	File
of	the	Tribunal	so	that	the	Petitioner - Lecturer	is
added	as	a nece	ssary	party	in	the array of Respo	ndents
and	after	hear	ing	all	the	parties concerned,	the
Tribunal		will	decide	t	he	Appeal afresh,	as

¶25

expeditiously as possible and preferably within a

¶26

period of six months from the receipt of this Writ.

¶27

:5:

¶28

Rule made absolute accordingly with no order

¶29

as to costs. Writ to go to the concerned parties

¶30

including the Tribunal, forthwith.

¶31

(NARESH H.PATIL,J.) (B . H.MARLAPALLE,J.)

Dhanashri Ramchandra Kapashilkar @ Sulbha Govind Moholkar v. the Administrator, Dalitmitra Kadam Guruji, Science and Arts College and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanashri Ramchandra Kapashilkar @ Sulbha Govind Moholkar v. the Administrator, Dalitmitra Kadam Guruji, Science and Arts College and Ors.

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

Shri. Kheraj Jayaram Bhanushali Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Minakshi Subhash Koli and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri.Anil Shankar Matthe Vs State of Maharashtra Th.Its Secretary and Ors.

The Administrator (Dalit Mitra Kadam Guruji, Science and Arts College ) and Anr. Vs Bharat Bapu Bichitkar and Ors.

Shri Vinod Shamrao Ranpise Vs Jain Vidya Prasarak Mandal and Anr.

Zodiac Developers Private Limited Vs Sangeeta Somnath Shendge and Ors.