Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2014WP/4975/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the State of Maharashtra's refusal to provide grant-in-aid for a new Microbiology subject staff at a petitioner-run college. The petitioner relied on a 1991 Government Resolution promising phased grants for new subjects. The Court held that while the petitioner did not specifically seek this relief earlier, they were entitled to claim grant-in-aid and directed the Sta

What did the court decide?

Directed the State to decide on the grant-in-aid for the lecturer within four weeks.

Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Writ Petition No.4975/1999

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4975 OF 1999

¶5

Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad, through its Secretary. 2. The Principal, Vasantrao Naik College, Aurangabad. 3. Smt. Madhuri Manikrao Sahastrabuddhe, Age 32 years, Occ. Service, Lecturer in Micro Biology, Vasantrao Naik College, Aurangabad. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education and Employment Department. Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 2. The Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune 3. The Joint Director of Higher Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner Mrs. M.S. Patni, A.G.P. for Respondent No.3 ..... CORAM: A.V. NIRGUDE AND A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ. DATED: 2 nd September, 2014.

¶6

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.V. Nirgude, J.) :

¶7

Writ Petition No.4975/1999

¶8

¶9

This petition has a checkered history, and the same, in short, can be narrated as under :

¶10

The petitioner No.1 is an education society. Petitioner No.2 is Principal of College run by the Society and the petitioner No.3 used to work as Lecturer in Microbiology subject of their College. In 1991, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 submitted proposal to the University for affiliation of certain courses in College and also sought permission to start a new subject called Microbiology. The Government granted such permission for starting a new subject Microbiology vide order dated 27.1.1993, adding a condition that the petitioner should not appoint new staff for teaching the new subject. On the other hand, the University insisted that the petitioner should appoint qualified staff for teaching the new subject. So, the petitioner No.1 and 2 appointed petitioner No.3 as Lecturer in Microbiology. In 1997, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 requested the Government to delete the condition which prevented them from appointing new staff, but the same was refused. In 1998, the petitioners approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.3161/1998 and the Court passed following order on 1.2.1999 :

¶11

“Heard.

¶12

On instructions, the learned A.G.P. makes a statement that he has no objection for deleting

¶13

Writ Petition No.4975/1999

¶14

¶15

the condition of not appointing new teachers for the subject. Therefore, we grant Rule and make the Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (A). However, we make it clear that deletion of this clause does not mean that the respondent Government is directed to pay the grant because that is not the question which was agitated in this petition.

¶16

3. Petition disposed of.”

¶17

On 17.2.1999, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 submitted a

¶18

representation to the respondent Nos.1 to 3, requesting for sanction of grant for teachers teaching Microbiology subject as well as other subjects, but in vain. Therefore, on 22.9.1999, this petition came to be filed. The petitioner mainly depended on Government Resolution dated 8.8.1991, which is annexed at Page 62 of the petition. Apparently, this resolution indicated policy decision of the Government that they would, from 199192, allow new Science branches and new subjects etc. to existing colleges firstly on non-grant basis and subsequently in phased manner they would provide grant for such colleges for new courses and new subjects.

¶19

On 1.2.1999, when the petitioners obtained above quoted order from this Court, in our view, the petitioners were entitled to press an appropriate order directing the State of Maharashtra to provide grant-in-aid as provided in the above referred Government Resolution of 1991. Since that was not sought, the Court did not consider it necessary to grant such relief.

¶20

Writ Petition No.4975/1999

¶21

¶22

The respondents submitted reply. Deponent Dr. Prakash Gaikwad, Incharge Director, Higher Education, Maharashtra State stated in his affidavit that, his office had forwarded proposal to state government for providing grant in aid to the petitioner on 21.8.2014. We found that, the reply submitted on record by the respondents is rather evasive. They have not taken a clear stand as to why the request made by the petitioners for providing grant-in-aid to Microbiology subject, staff etc. was not favourably considered. They are not denying that they issued Government Resolution dated 8.8.1991. They also do not state as to whether any new policy is formulated by the Government on this subject.

¶23

We are, therefore, inclined to direct the respondent No.1 to consider and apply their policy of providing grant-in-aid for colleges like petitioner No.2 as per their existing policy. The petition stands disposed of. The respondent No.1 shall take decision within four weeks from today. Rule made absolute in above terms.

Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Education Society Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri Sant Govindbaba Shishkan Prasarak Mandal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ganesh Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Ganeshwadi Sonai Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pradeep Vitthalrao More Vs Chairman Bharat Shikshan Sanstha Omerga and Ors.

State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Namdeo Karbhari Kankarale and Ors.

Khurshid Khan Nijam Khan Jamadar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.