Dismissed

Jamina Mohammediya Education Soc and Anrthou Its President/Secretary v. State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Nov 2023WP/13480/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination order of an Assistant Professor. The Court held that interference was not warranted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, quashing the prior Tribunal order and dismissing the Petitioners' challenge.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Jamina Mohammediya Education Soc and Anrthou… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

20-wp-13480-2023.doc
Sonali

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.13480 OF 2023

¶4

Jamina Mohammediya Education Society
through its President/Secretary & Anr....Petitioners
 Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors....Respondents

¶5

Mr. Jayendra D. Khairnar a/w. Mufeez Ansari, for the Petitioners.

¶6

Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP, for the State.

¶7

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 29^th NOVEMBER 2023

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

1. Heard Mr. Khairnar, learned counsel appearing for the

¶10

Petitioners.

¶11

2.In the Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenge is to the legality and validity of the
order dated 21st February 2023 passed by the learned Presiding
Officer of University and College Tribunal, Pune (hereinafter referred
to as “the University Tribunal”) in Appeal No.2 of 2021. In the said
Appeal, the challenge was to the termination order issued by the

¶12

1/3

¶13

20-wp-13480-2023.doc
Sonali

¶14

present Petitioners dated 31st May 2020.

¶15

3.The factual position on record shows that Respondent No.3 has
been appointed in the Petitioner-College on 19th August 2013 on the
post of Assistant Professor from the Other Backward Class (“OBC”)
category. It is the contention of the Respondent No.3 that his service
was approved by the Pune University on 26th April 2014. Learned
counsel appearing for the Petitioners disputes the said position.
However, learned University Tribunal has observed that Respondent
No.3 was deemed to have become permanent on the said post after
the completion of two years probation.

¶16

4.Undisputedly, service of the Respondent No.3 is governed by
the Maharashtra Public University Act, 2016(“the said Act”). Learned
University Tribunal has rightly held that termination order is major
penalty and before imposing such a major penalty, the Management
of the college is required to follow the Statute more particularly 431
and 433 of the Pune University. The termination order clearly shows
that no inquiry has been conducted and the service of the Respondent
No.3 is terminated. By the impugned order, termination order is set

¶17

aside and the Petitioners have been directed to be reinstated the
Respondent No.3 on the same post of Assistant Professor with benefit

¶18

2/3

¶19

20-wp-13480-2023.doc
Sonali

¶20

of continuity in service, full back wages and allowances, if any, as per
the rules.

¶21

5.The factual position on record clearly shows that the impugned
order of termination of Respondent No.3 is in clear breach of relevant
Pune University Statute and provisions of the said Act. The factual
position on record establishes that even the principles of natural
justice are not followed.

¶22

6. Therefore, this is not a case where interference of this Court

¶23

under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted.

¶24

7. The Writ Petition is dismissed, however with no order as to

¶25

costs.

¶26

 [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶27

3/3

Jamina Mohammediya Education Soc and Anrthou Its President/Secretary v. State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamina Mohammediya Education Soc and Anrthou Its President/Secretary v. State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary 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

Union of India Vs M/S Bhate Builders

Sreenivasan Valadi Vayyattu Vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector of Stamps, Thane City and Ors.and Ors.

Nalini Suresh Patil Vs Madhukar Rama Patil and Ors.

Laxman Jijaba Tanapure Vs Yeshwant Rekhuji Jadhav Decd through Lhrs and Ors.

Mukund Vasantrao Bhosle Vs Assistant Executive Engineer Flying Squad and Anr.

Laxman Jijaba Tanapure Vs Yeshwant Rekhuji Jadhav Decd through Lhrs and Ors.