Allowed

Mrs. Lina W/O Sunil Konde v. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur through Its Registrar and 2 Others

Bombay HC18 Apr 2015WP/5580/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the quashing of a Management Council order rejecting a released increment proposal. The court held the order bad in law due to violation of natural justice (denial of hearing) and recusal of the Chairman of the Education Society who ought to have disqualified himself.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Management Council dated 10.3.2014 is quashed and set aside. The Council is directed to decide the matter after hearing parties within four months.

Mrs. Lina W/O Sunil Konde Vs Rashtrasant Tukdoji… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 wp5580.14.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.5580 OF 2014

¶4

[Mrs. Lina w/o Sunil Konde .vs. Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur and others]

¶5

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

¶7

Shri Anand Parchure, counsel for the petitioner, Shri R.D. Bhuibhar, counsel for the respondent no.1, Shri B.G. Kulkarni, counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶8

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶9

DATED : APRIL 18, 2015.

¶10

Heard.

¶11

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Management Council dated 10.3.2014, rejecting the proposal of the Grievance Committee, directing the release of the withheld increment, in favour of the petitioner.

¶12

Inter alia, the petitioner challenges the order of the Management Council on the ground that the petitioner was not heard by the Management Council before the decision dated 10.3.2014 was rendered. Secondly, according to the petitioner, the respondent no.3, who is the Chairman of the Education Society in which the petitioner is working, was the member on the Management Council and his wife is the Principal of the college in which the petitioner is employed. It is stated that the respondent no.3 was the judge in his own cause and hence for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment reported in 2011 (3) Mh.L.J. 790 [Shri Saibaba Gramin Vikas Sanstha, Gadchiroli and another .vs. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University and others] to substantiate his submission that it was necessary for the Management Council to hear the petitioner before taking a decision on the proposal of the Grievance Committee.

¶13

2 wp5580.14.odt

¶14

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the impugned order of the Management Council is liable to be quashed and set aside on both the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner. The order of the Management Council is bad in law, as the petitioner was not heard before the Management Council passed the impugned order dated 10.3.2014. Also, the respondent no.3 could not have been the judge in his own cause. The respondent no.3 is admittedly the Chairman of the Education Society which runs the Arts, Commerce and Science College in which the petitioner is working and the wife of the respondent no.3 is the Principal in the said Arts, Commerce and Science College. The respondent no.3 ought to have recused himself from the Management Council, as the matter pertains to the release of increment by the Society of which he is the Chairman.

¶15

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Management Council is quashed and set aside. The Management Council should take a decision in the matter after hearing the parties. The Management Council should decide the matter, as early as possible and positively, within a period of four months. Order accordingly. No costs.

¶16

JUDGE

¶17

JUDGE

¶18

Gulande

Mrs. Lina W/O Sunil Konde v. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur through Its Registrar and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Lina W/O Sunil Konde v. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur through Its Registrar and 2 Others

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

Sau. Pallavi Surendrasing Solanke Vs Union of India, through Secretry, Ministry of Petrol and Natural Gas, New Delhi and 4 Others

Omprakash S/O. Khemraj Walde. Vs Smt.Bindu W/O. Omprakash Walde.

Sau. Lilesh W/O Vinod Agrawal Vs Vinod Ramrichpal Agrawal

Tara Wd/O Gokul Marve and 3 Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Anothers

Alka W/O Dindayal Uikey Vs Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi through Its Secretary and 2 Others

Sou. Manda W/O Narayan Gavli Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and 2 Others