The Bombay High Court held that issuing an experience certificate stating an employee was on a temporary fixed-salary basis did not violate a previous order quashing her academic appointment. The court dismissed the civilian's contempt petition for lacking merit.
null
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.
cp204.19
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.204 OF 2019 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.6698 OF 2016
Suchita Chokhaji Ingle,
Age-38 years, Occu:Household,
R/o-Plot No.8, In front of
Amit Apartments, Nandanvan Colony,
Aurangabad.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary to the
Government of Maharashtra
in Home Department, Mantralaya,
Fort, Mumbai-32,
2) Dr. Pradip Jabde, Age-Major, Occu:Service
as Registrar, Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar Marathwada University,
Aurangabad,
3) Varsha Kachru Agale,
Age-Major, Occu:Not known,
R/o-Plot No.19, Kirti Housing
Society, CIDCO, N-8, Aurangabad.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.Shirish M. Kamble Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr.P.G. Borade, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
...
cp204.19
2
CORAM: P.B. VARALE AND
R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
DATE : 19TH JUNE, 2019
ORDER :
1.Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner. The Petitioner, by way of present
Contempt Petition, is before this Court with the
grievance that the Judgment and order of this
Court dated 8th March 2017, passed in Writ Petition
No.6698 of 2016 is not complied and there is
willful disobedience of the order of this Court.
2.The present Contempt Petition is based on
an experience certificate issued by the Registrar,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University,
Aurangabad. The submission of the learned counsel
is that issuing such certificate to Smt. V.K.
Agale, who was Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition
No.6698 of 2016, is contrary to the order of this
Court.
cp204.19
3
3.On perusal of the copy of said Writ
Petition placed on record, it reveals that the
principal prayer in the Writ Petition was prayer
clause D) and the other ancillary prayers were
prayer clause C) and E). The prayer clauses in
Writ Petition No.6698 of 2016, reads thus:
“A) This Writ Petition may kindly be
allowed.
B) Record and Proceedings be called for.
C) By issuing Writ of Mandamus or any
other appropriate Writ, Order or
Direction, the selection process held for
the post of Assistant Professor pursuant
to the Advertisement Dtd. 30.04.2016
issued by Resp. No.2 may kindly be
quashed and set aside by directing the
Resp. No.2 to conduct the fresh selection
process for the Appointment of Assistant
Professor as per law.
D) By issuing Writ of Mandamus or any
cp204.19
4
other appropriate Writ, Order or
Direction, the appointment of Res. No.3
& 4 made by Resp. No.2 as per the
Advertisement Dtd. 30.04.2016 may kindly
be quashed and set aside.
E) To hold and declare that, the
selection process conducted by the Resp.
No.2 pursuant to the Advertisement
Dtd. 30.04.2016 is illegal and is in
violation of Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of
the Constitution of India.
F) By issuing Writ of Mandamus or any
other appropriate Writ, Order of
Direction, the Resp. No.2 may kindly be
directed to decide the Application
Dtd. 17.05.2016 filed by the Petitioner
and to decide the said objection
application.
G) Any other suitable and equitable
reliefs be granted in favour of the
Petitioner.”
4.On going through the detailed Judgment of
this Court dated 8th March 2017, it emerges that
the Petitioners therein have approached this Court
cp204.19
5
challenging the selection of Respondent Nos.3
and 4 on the ground that Respondent Nos.3 and 4
are not possessing the requisite qualification
and/or criteria. The Respondent University made an
attempt to submit before this Court that tenure of
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 would come to an end in
April 2017 and hardly one month was left for the
period for which appointment was given, so it may
not be desirable to set aside the appointment
orders. The submission made on behalf of the
Respondent University could not find favour of
this Court and resultantly, the Writ Petition was
allowed by quashing and setting aside the
appointments of Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
5.It is the submission of the counsel
appearing for the Petitioner that in view of
quashing and setting aside the appointment of
Respondent Nos.3 and 4, the University ought not
to have issued experience certificate in favour of
cp204.19
6
Smt. V.K. Agale, Respondent No.4 in the Writ
Petition. Perusal of the experience certificate
show that it only refers to the fact that Smt.
V.K. Agale was an employee of the University on
purely temporary basis on fixed salary for the
period of 11 months. By no stretch of imagination
we can say that issuance of this experience
certificate either runs contrary to the order of
this Court or is a willful disobedience of the
order of this Court.
6.Considering this fact, we are of the
opinion that the Contempt Petition is filed in
this Court only on assumptions and presumptions of
the Petitioner and the said being devoid of any
merits, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold,
and the same is accordingly dismissed.
[R.G. AVACHAT, J.] [P.B. VARALE, J.]
asb/JUN19
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the issuance of an experience certificate to a respondent in an earlier writ petition constitutes willful disobedience of a previous order quashing their appointment.
Suchita Chokhaji Ingle
The State of Maharashtra
Dr. Pradip Jabde
Varsha Kachru Agale
P.B. Varale
R.G. Avachat
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court