Disposed

Vijay Dagduji Kshelke and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Feb 2014WP/6493/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Mumbai High Court disposed of group writ petitions by clarifying that a Government letter withdrawing regularization directives does not terminate teacher services. The Court held that the University must follow due legal process and pass a reasoned order independently to end services.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of; apprehension regarding termination addressed by requiring University to act independently under law.

Vijay Dagduji Kshelke and Ors. Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WRIT PETITION NO.6459/2011/Group

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6459 OF 2011

¶5

WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.6482/2011,

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.6493/2011 AND CIVIL APPLICTON NO. 12946/2013, WRIT PETITION NO.6494/2011, WRIT PETITION NO.6495/2011, WRIT PETITION NO.6693/2011, WRIT PETITION NO.7803/2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO.7880/2011.

¶8

VASUDEO DATTATRAYA JADHAV AND ORS VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

¶10

Advocates for Petitioners : S/Shri B.A.Dhengle, V.D.Salunke, Pravin S.Patil and P.V.Barde, GP/AGP for Respondents - State authorities : S/Shri S.V.Kurundkar with V.D.Godbharale,

¶11

Advocate for Respondents - Dr.B.A.M.University & its officers:

¶12

Shri S.S.Thombre,

¶13

Advocates for Respondents - Educational Institutions : S/Shri Vivek Bhavthankar & T.G.Gaikwad,

¶14

ASG for Respondent Union of India : Shri Alok Sharma

¶15

CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. Dated: February 06, 2014

¶16

PER COURT :-

¶17

The petitioners have approached this Court, in each of these petitions, praying that after being fully qualified and duly selected to work as Lecturers, they have joined the educational institutions and were working for decades together. It is true that their services were initially styled as 'on adhoc basis' but they have been continued from time to time. It is their claim that regularly constituted Selection Committee of the University selected them and that is how the petitions proceed.

¶18

WRIT PETITION NO.6459/2011/Group

¶19

¶20

The issue, whether these persons were appointed by following the procedure in accordance with law or that their appointments are purely on 'ad-hoc basis', has been raised but what has been relied upon is that at one time there was concurrence given to continue their services. The claim is that the services have not only been continued but approved by the State. It is in these circumstances, that they are aggrieved and dissatisfied with a letter or a communication issued by the Government dated 14.7.2011, by which the process of appointing new teachers was directed to be initiated. The claim is that without putting an end to the services of the petitioners in accordance with law, the process is being initiated afresh and to fill up the same posts.

¶21

It is alleged that the State could not have brought an end to the services of the petitioners in this manner, rather, it was for the University who had employed the petitioners and took their services, to have put an end to the same and by due process of law.

¶22

Reliance is placed upon the decision rendered and in one of the cases, namely, Rajendra Vs. State of Maharashtra and others [(2008) 11 SCC 90].

¶23

After hearing all parties at great length, what we have noted is that the communication emanating from the Department of Higher and Technical Education of the Government of Maharashtra, dated 14.7.2011 informs that Shri Ramesh S. Chavhan had filed Writ Petition No.7758 of 2009 in this Court. Though the Writ Petition has been dismissed on 2.3.2010, this Court has

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO.6459/2011/Group

¶25

¶26

passed an order and to the effect that whether there is any power in the State Government to issue directions to the University and affiliated Colleges to regularize the services of those candidates, who have been selected by Selection Committee which is called Local Selection Committee for appointment of candidates on temporary basis. Such a power could not be pointed out and therefore, the Court observed that the University cannot be forced to follow the directions and which the Government has issued without any authority.

¶27

Now, the Government has decided to withdraw any such direction, if issued and has, therefore, created an apprehension in the petitioners that since the Government directions and directives have been withdrawn, their services would be brought to an end.

¶28

This Court, in each of these petitions had protected the petitioners by staying the implementation and/or execution of this letter.

¶29

When these Writ Petitions were placed before us, we expressed a view that this Government communication / letter cannot by itself bring to an end services of the petitioners and with the University or the affiliated Colleges. It is the University and affiliated Colleges, which have to take necessary steps and in accordance with law. In these circumstances, the letter of the Government need not be construed as an order of termination or putting an end to the services of these petitioners.

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO.6459/2011/Group

¶31

¶32

When such a view was expressed and it was clarified that it would be open for the University or affiliated Colleges to take necessary steps in accordance with law, in the event they desire to put an end to the services of the petitioners, we called upon Shri Thombre, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent - University to take instructions.

¶33

Shri Thombre, learned Advocate states that the University would, in the event it desires to put an end to the petitioners' services, take the requisite steps and in accordance with law, meaning thereby that the University will not proceed to terminate the services only by relying on the Government communication but would act independent thereof. It would hear each of the petitioners, in case it proposes to pass any order adverse to them and it wold pass a reasoned order, on merits of each case and in accordance with law.

¶34

In the light of the above clarification coming from the University, the Writ Petitions need not be kept pending. The apprehension of the petitioners is taken care of. Their services would not be put to an end, save and except by the due process of law.

¶35

We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions, including on the point of the authority of the State to issue such directions.

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO.6459/2011/Group

¶37

¶38

Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶39

In view of the disposal of Writ Petitions, pending Civil Application does not survive and accordingly disposed of.

¶40

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ( S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. )

¶41

akl

Vijay Dagduji Kshelke and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Dagduji Kshelke and Ors. v. the 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Govardhan Shinde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hamed Abdulla Bajaman and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Andors

Mohammed Abdul Kareem Shaikh Jeelani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vinayakrao Pandharinath Gholap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kanbarao Punjarao Naik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Yogesh Prabhakar Choudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra