Partly allowed

Ravindra Yadav Chaudhari v. the Principal, Ashtang Ayurved Mahavidyalaya and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Feb 2012WP/848/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the University's rejection of a petition for appointment approval as arbitrary. It directed the University to reconsider the matter in light of a specific government communication, ensuring all concerns are addressed before a final decision, while maintaining the petitioner's status quo.

What did the court decide?

The communication dated March 8, 2011 was set aside. The petitioner was relegated to the Registrar of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences for a fresh decision, with status quo maintained unt

Ravindra Yadav Chaudhari Vs the Principal, Ashtang… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 84812

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

vgm

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 848 OF 2012

¶6

Ravindra Yadav Chaudhari ...Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The Principal, Ashtang Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Pune, & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

Mr. S.R. Ganbavale for the Petitioner

¶10

Mr. Abhijeet Joshi for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

¶11

Ms. S.S. Bhende, A.G.P., for Respondent Nos. 3 and 5

¶12

Mr. R.V. Govilkar for Respondent No. 4

¶13

CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND N.M. JAMDAR, JJ. DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2012

¶14

P.C .:-

¶15

The petition takes exception to the communication received

¶16

from the University dated 8^th March, 2011 (Exhibit ‘P’), wherein it is

¶17

noted that the proposal to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner is rejected.

¶18

2 84812

¶19

The petitioner submits that he made representation to the Competent Authority of the University, but has not received any response thereto so far.

¶20

In the reply-affidavit, the University has stated that the representation made by the petitioner was duly considered and rejected. It is stated that the University proceeded on the basis of the information given by the college. That information was later on found to be incorrect, if not false. According to the University, it was noticed that the petitioner was appointed against the Scheduled Caste Category post, whereas the college gave a different impression that the petitioner was appointed against Open Category post. The University verified the record of the college, and has formed an opinion that the appointment of the petitioner was against S.C. Category post, and not Open Category post, as asserted by the petitioner and represented by the college. This, in itself, is a serious matter, which the University ought to have taken to its logical end, and not left with the response of refusal of proposal regarding granting of approval to the appointment of the petitioner.

¶21

Be that as it may, the petitioner contends that the University

¶22

has completely glossed over the stand taken by the Office of Directorate

¶23

3 84812

¶24

of Ayurved, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, in its communication dated 30^th August, 2010 (Exhibit ‘O’). The counsel for the University is not in a position to demonstrate that the University took into account the said communication; and yet was of the opinion that approval cannot be granted to the appointment of the petitioner. Indeed, the counsel for the University contended that the University was not expected to consider the communication dated 30^th August, 2010 sent by the Director, Directorate of Ayurved, addressed to the University. The University did not receive the said communication. Nevertheless, the issue raised in the said communication deserves consideration. The University, before taking final decision in respect of the petitioner’s proposal for approval, in our opinion, ought to examine the efficacy of the contents of the said communication dated 30^th August, 2010, and take a fresh decision in the matter as may be warranted in the fact situation of the case and permissible in law.

¶25

Accordingly, we set aside the communication dated 8^th March, 2011, and relegate the petitioner before the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, who, in turn, shall examine the matter himself or place it before the Competent Authority, who would be taking final decision in the matter regarding grant or non-grant

¶26

4 84812

¶27

of approval to the appointment of the employees of the college concerned.

¶28

The counsel for the University has brought to our notice that one Dr. Vandana Thosar made complaint about the irregular appointment of the petitioner by the college against the S.C. Category post, and that enquiry is pending before the SC/ST Commission. Unless that enquiry is completed, it may not be possible for the University to take any final decision in the matter.

¶29

This submission does not commend to us for more than one reason. Firstly, the factual position about the vacancies and the appointments made by the college concerned qua such vacancies is a matter which is within the domain of the University. It has to consider those matters to answer the issue of grant of approval to such appointments. We fail to understand how the pendency of proceedings before the S.C. / S.T. Commission will come in the way of the University to answer the said controversy. Besides, the communication dated 30^th August, 2010 (Exhibit ‘O’) sent by the Director of Directorate of Ayurved, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, gives a different perspective to the controversy. For consideration of that aspect, pendency of proceedings before S.C. / S.T. Commission will be no impediment for the University.

¶30

5 84812

¶31

In the circumstances, we direct the University to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of observations made by us in this order expeditiously. Needless to observe that the University will give opportunity to all concerned, including to Dr. Vandana Thosar, who has complained about the irregular appointment of the petitioner, before taking any final decision in the matter. We hope and trust that the University will resolve the controversy expeditiously, in any case within four weeks from today.

¶32

Since the petitioner is relegated before the University, until final decision is taken by the University, status quo as of today with regard to the employment of the petitioner will have to be maintained by the parties.

¶33

This petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶34

N.M. JAMDAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

Ravindra Yadav Chaudhari v. the Principal, Ashtang Ayurved Mahavidyalaya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Yadav Chaudhari v. the Principal, Ashtang Ayurved Mahavidyalaya 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

Proposed Vaibhav Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

M/S. Harekrishna Builders, through Ashit Balwant Doshi Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Ravikant Narayan Acharekar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Welfare and Justice Dept and Ors.

Manish Kumar and Anr. Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Archana Pawar Vs Sanjay Mayekar

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Hira Dharma Bhagat and Anr.