The High Court Bench at Aurangabad considered a review application against a division bench order. The court held that the grounds were reiterations of previous petitions, no new error existed, and thus rejected the application.
Review Application stands rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ra36.17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.36 OF 2017 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.5704 OF 2013
1) Vasantrao Naik Shikshan PrasarakMandal, Aurangabad, |
|---|
Through its Secretary, |
2) Vasantrao Naik College,Aurangabad,Through its Principal....APPLICANTSVERSUS |
1) The State of Maharashtra,Through Chief Secretary,Higher Education Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai, |
2) The Director of Higher Education,Maharashtra State, Pune, |
3) The Joint Director of HigherEducation, Aurangabad Division,Aurangabad, |
4) Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar MarathwadaUniversity, Aurangabad,Through its Registrar, |
5) The Grievance Committee,Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar MarathwadaUniversity, Aurangabad, |
Through its President, |
ra36.17
2
6) College and University Development Board, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, Through its Director,7) Smt. Madhuri Manikrao Sahastrabudhe,
Age-48 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Plot No.8, Sector-A,
Garware Quarters, CIDCO,
N-5, Aurangabad.
...RESPONDENTS
Mr.Santosh S. Jadhavar Advocate for
Applicants.
Mr.S.B. Yawalkar, Additional Government
Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Miss. Pradnya S. Talekar Advocate for
Respondent No.7.
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 17TH JANUARY, 2018
DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER: 25TH JANUARY, 2018
ORDER [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:
1.This application seeks review of the
common Judgment and order dated 6th June, 2016
passed by the Division Bench of this Court (CORAM:
S.S. SHINDE AND SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.) in Writ
ra36.17
3
Petition No.5704 of 2013 (Smt. Madhuri Manikrao
Sahasrabudhe vs. State of Maharashtra and others)
and Writ Petition No.4600 of 2014( Vasantrao Naik
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and another vs. Dr.
BabasahebAmbedkarMarathwadaUniversity,
Aurangabad).
2.Learned counsel appearing for the review
applicants invites our attention to the grounds
taken in the Review Application and submits that
the resolution impugned in the Writ Petition was
passed by the Respondent No.5 Grievance Committee
in gross violation of the principles of natural
justice, as review applicant No.1 was never served
with notice of the said proceedings and the review
applicants were not allowed to participate in the
said proceedings, so also to tender their say to
the grievance raised by Respondent No.7 - Smt.
Madhuri Sahastrabudhe.
3.It is further argued that Respondent No.5
ra36.17
4
Grievance Committee has not considered the say
filed by present Applicant No.2 and the
documentary evidence placed on record in respect
of payment of salary to Respondent No.7 Mrs.
Madhuri. There was no proper adjudication of the
grievances raised by Respondent No.7 employee. The
grievance of person/employee cannot be decided by
passing resolution. It is submitted that before
passing said resolution the review applicants were
not afforded an opportunity of hearing. Learned
counsel also invites our attention to the other
grounds taken in the Review Application and
submits that the Review Application deserves to be
allowed.
4.On the other hand learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.7 submits that the
grounds taken in the Review Application are
similar to the grounds taken in the Writ Petition.
The review applicants neither raised any new
ground nor brought on record any error apparent on
ra36.17
5
the face of record so as to seek review of the
order in question. It is submitted that the review
applicants are depriving Respondent No.7 from
getting the monetary benefits by not implementing
the directions issued by the Grievance Committee
which are confirmed by this Court. Therefore,
learned counsel submits that the Review
Application may be rejected.
5.We have carefully considered the
submissions of the learned counsel appearing for
the review applicants and learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.7. We have carefully
perused the grounds taken in the Review
Application and we find that the grounds taken in
the Writ Petition are almost reproduced/reiterated
in the Review Application. The grounds which are
raised in the Review Application have already been
considered while disposing of the Writ Petitions.
Admittedly, till date the review applicants have
not complied with the orders passed by the
ra36.17
6
Respondent Grievance Committee and also by this
Court.
6.It is unfortunate that the facts which
were pleaded by the Petitioners in Writ Petition
No.4975 of 1999 (Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Aurangabad and others vs. State of
Maharashtra and others), which was filed by the
present review applicants herein, are tried to be
twisted in reply filed in Writ Petition No.5704 of
2013 which was filed by Respondent No.7 herein,
and in Writ Petition No.4600 of 2014 which was
filed by the review applicants herein. In the
impugned Judgment there is discussion about the
facts pleaded by the Petitioners in Writ Petition
No.4975 of 1995 who are review applicants herein,
and now the Petitioners resiled from the said
facts and tried to plead altogether different
facts in Writ Petition No.4600 of 2014 which was
filed by the review applicants herein.
ra36.17
7
6.In our opinion, there is no error
apparent on the face of record so as to review the
order in question. Hence the Review Application
stands rejected.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record to warrant allowing a review of the judgment and order.
Whether the grounds raised in the review application are new or merely a reiteration of grounds already considered in the original writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad and others vs. State of Maharashtra and othersReferred¶44
Writ Petition No.4975 of 1999 (Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others)
Smt. Madhuri Manikrao Sahasrabudhe vs. State of Maharashtra and othersAffirmed¶22
Writ Petition No.5704 of 2013 (Smt. Madhuri Manikrao Sahasrabudhe vs. State of Maharashtra and others)
Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and another vs. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, AurangabadAffirmed¶22
Writ Petition No.4600 of 2014 ( Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and another vs. Dr. BabasahebAmbedkarMarathwadaUniversity, Aurangabad)
Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad
Vasantrao Naik College, Aurangabad
The State of Maharashtra
The Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune
The Grievance Committee, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad
Smt. Madhuri Manikrao Sahastrabudhe
S.S. SHINDE
SANGITRAO S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court