1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2903 OF 2008 1. Vaidyakiya Karmachari Sanghtana Ahmednagar Zilla, Ahmednagar, Through its Secretary, Vilas Bhikulal Mundada, Age : 44 Years, Occu. : Nil., R/o Kolhar, Bhagwatpur, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar, 2. Arjun Umaji Jambhulkar, Age : 34 Years, Occu. : Watchman, R/o Tambewadi, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. Navab Babulal Sayed, Age : 47 Years, Occu. :Peon, R/o Loni, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4. Smt. Surekha Arvind Londhe, Age : 34 Years, Occu. : Watchman, R/o Loni Kh, Adgaon Road, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 5. Ashok Bhimaji Nirmal, Age : 42 Years, Occu. : Asstt., R/o Nirmal Pimpri, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2 6. Ashok Kundlik Ranjanwane, Age : 37 Years, Occu. : Dental Mechanic, R/o Loni Bk. Sadatpur Road, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 7. Sharif Mohd. Shaikh, Age : 34 Years, Occu. : Peon, R/o Hasnapur, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 8. Nizam Kankar Shaikh, Age : 47 Years, Occu. : Clerk, R/o Hasanapur, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 9. Nabaji Vishwanath Bagul, Age : 44 Years, Occu. : Peon, R/o Loni Kh., Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 10. Peer Mohd Kaymo Patel, Age : 37 Years, Occu. : Carpenter, R/o Galnimb, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. 11. Sadik Nurmohammad Shaikh, Age : 37 Years, Occu. : Clerk-Typist, R/o Hasanapur, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 12. Gorakshanath Nivrutti Gore, Age : 38 Years, Occu. : Clerk, R/o Loni, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3 13. Appasaheb Nana Navale, Age : 42 Years, Occu. : Carpenter, R/o Loni Kh., Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 14. Ananda Tukaram Gaikwad, Age : 42 Years, Occu. : Painter, R/o Rajuri, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 15. Subhash Dattatraya Pawar, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Mali, R/o Kolhar Kh., Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 16. Rajendra Pundlik Kshirsagar, Age : 44 Years, Occu. : Carpenter, R/o Babhaleshwar, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 17. Gorakshanath Vithal Shinde, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Watchman, R/o Soygaon, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. 18. Abbasali Ajgarali Patel, Age : 34 Years, Occu. : Watchman, R/o Hasanapur, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 19. Macchindra Namdeo Ghorpade, Age : 37 Years, Occu. : Clerk, R/o Nirmal Pimpri, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4 20. Ashok Madhav Satpute, Age : 36 Years, Occu. : Watchman, R/o Durgapur, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 21. Sou. Vimal Macchindra Lokhande, Age : 47 Years, Occu. : Attendant, R/o Loni Bk., Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 22. Smt. Maya Victor Bhingardive, Age : 42 Years, Occu. : Attendant, R/o Loni Kh., Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 23. Ganpat Devram Pardhe, Age : 37 Years, Occu. : Watchman, R/o Chinchpur, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 24. Sou. Mangal Mahadu Suryawanshi, Age : 47 Years, Occu. : Waitsweeper, R/o Loni Bk., Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 25. Shivaji Godhaji Khamkar, Age : 31 Years, Occu. : Watchman, R/o Pratapur, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 26. Vishwanath Changdeo Dhage, Age : 32 Years, Occu. : Watchman, R/o Tisgaon, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. .. Petitioners 5 Versus 1. Pravara Medical Trust through its Managing Director, Balasaheb @ Vithalrao Vikhe Patil, Age : 75 Yeas, R/o Loni Bk., Tq. Rahta, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Rural Medical College, through its Principal, R/o Loni Bk., Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. Rural Dental College, through its Principal, R/o Loni Bk., Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4. Pravara Rural Hospital, through its Trustee and Medical Director, R/o Loni Bk., Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 5. Pravara Institute of Medical Science, Loni, Dist. Ahmednagar, (Deemed University), through its Registrar, R/o Loni Bk., Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 6 6. University of Pune, through its Registrar, Ganesh Khind, Pune - 7. 7. Grievance Committee of University of Pune, Through its Member Secretary, C/o University of Pune, Ganesh Khind, Pune - 7. 8. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Medical Education and Research Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 9. Medical Council of India, through its Secretary, Kotla Road, Opp. Mata Sundan College, New Delhi. 10. Dental Council of India, New Delhi, Through its Secretary. 11. University Grant Commission, through its Chairman, Bhahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi. .. .. Respondents 7 Shri V. J. Dixit Senior Counsel i/by Shri S. B. Yawalkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V. D. Hone, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 to 5. Shri A. R. Kale, Advocate h/f Shri A. R. Joshi, Advocate for the Respondents No. 6 and 7. Shri S. V. Kurundkar, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent No. 8. Shri Alok Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General for the Respondents No. 9 to 11. CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 24TH FEBRUARY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per A. P. DESHPANDE, J. ] : 01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 02. The present petitioner No. 1 is a union of workmen employed in Pravara Institute of Medical Science or its constituent unites which are declared as an institute "Deemed to be University" under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act 1956, vide notification dated 29th September, 2003. There are six constituent units of Pravara Institute of Medical Science (hereinafter referred to as "Deemed University" 8 for short) and the same are (1) Rural Medical College, Loni, (2) Rural Dental College, Loni, (3) College of Physiotherapy, Loni, (4) College of Nursing, Loni, (5) Centre for Biotechnology and (6) Centre for Social Medicines. The petitioners No. 2 to 26 are members of non teaching staff who are recruited as lab technicians, phone operators, clerks, drivers and other Class III and Class IV servants. 03. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they came to be appointed since the year 1984-86 onwards, they were not given the admissible benefits, such as pay scales, allowances, bonus, etc. as stipulated by the statutes. Their other grievances touches failure to maintain seniority list, transfers from one institute to another, non payment monetary benefits admissible under 4th and 5th pay commission, etc. Some time in the year 2000-2001 the petitioners filed complaints touching their grievances before the Grievance Committee constituted by the Pune University as provided by Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, as Pravara Institute of Medical Science and other constituent units were then affiliated to Pune University. 04. Notices were issued to the respondents Pravara Medical 9 Trust and other constituent units. When the complaints were pending, by an order dated 29th September, 2003 the Government of India issued a notification in exercise of power conferred by Section 3 of University Grants Commission Act 1956, on the advice of University Grants Commission conferring status of "deemed university" on Pravara Institute of Medical Science. The conferment of deemed university status was initially for a period of three years with immediate effect. By yet another notification dated 22nd July 2004, four constituent units of the institute were also granted status of deemed university, which are impleaded as respondents. The respondents No. 1 to 5 herein raised objection before the Grievance Committee to its jurisdiction. The respondents No. 1 to 5 contended that the Grievance Committee constituted under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act constituted for redressing the grievance of the employees of the university and affiliated colleges has no jurisdiction to deal with the complaints of deemed university. The said objection was considered by the Grievance Committee, so also Management Council of the university. The Management Council of the university accepted the objection raised by the respondents No. 1 to 5 that the Grievance Committee of the Pune University has no jurisdiction to deal 10 with the complaints lodged by the present petitioners. All the grievances/complaints were forwarded by the Pune University to the "Deemed University" for consideration and appropriate decision. Aggrieved thereby this writ petition has been filed. 05. The petitioners have challenged the resolution dated 09th March, 2005 passed by the Management Council of the University of Pune and consequential communication dated 29th March, 2005, informing the petitioners that it has no jurisdiction to deal with the complaints of the petitioners and intimating the transfer of the complaints to the "Deemed University". The petitioners are seeking quashing of the said resolution and also writ of mandamus with a view to command the respondents No. 6 and 7 i. e. Pune University and the Grievance Committee to hear and decide the complaints filed by the petitioners under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act 1994. 06. Section 3 of the Maharashtra Universities Act 1994 which deals with incorporation of universities, provide that in relation of each of the existing universities specified in column (1) of Part I of the Schedule, with effect from the date of commencement of this Act, the corresponding university with the name, specified 11 against it in column (2) of the said Part, is hereby constituted under this Act, for the same area specified in column (3) of the said Part for which it was constituted immediately before the date of commencement of the Act. Sub section 2 of Section 3 empowers the State Government to constitute any new university under the Act by such name and confer such area with effect from such date as may be specified by the notification in Official Gazette. 07. University has been defined in Section 2 (36) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, "university" means any of the universities mentioned in the Schedule. Thus, the Maharashtra Universities Act, goes to regulate various activities of the universities specified in the schedule. Perusal of Section 57 would reveal that there shall be a grievance committee in each university to deal with the grievances of teachers and other employees of the university, colleges, institutions and recognized institutions to hear and settle grievances. Under the scheme of Section 57 the grievance committee is expected to make a report to Management Council. Finality is given to the decision of the Management Council which is to be taken on the report submitted by the grievance committee. Composition of the 12 grievance committee is also spelt out in Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act. Closer scrutiny of Section 57 goes to reveal that the grievance committee is set up to deal with the grievances of the employees of the university, colleges, institutions and recognized institutions, obviously, meaning thereby the employees of the university and affiliated colleges and institutions which are recognized by that university. The Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 does not empower one university to deal with the grievances of employees of another university. The university area which is referred to in Section 3 is specified in column 3 of the Part I of the Schedule. 08. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite a deemed university status being conferred on the respondents No. 1 to 5, the complaints of the petitioners need to be addressed by the Grievance Committee by exercising powers under Section 57 of the Act cannot be accepted, for more than one reason. In the first place as indicated hereinabove, the university incorporated under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 cannot consider and decide the grievances of employees of some other university, such as deemed university. We proceed to examine the relevant provisions of the University Grants 13 Commission Act 1956, in exercise of which power the Central Government, on recommendation of the University Grants Commission, has conferred the status of deemed university. University has been defined in Section 2 (f) of the University Grants Commission Act, which reads thus, "University" means a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recognized by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act. Section 3 which deals with the application of Act to institutions for higher studies, other than university, provides that Central Government may, on the advice of the Commission, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that any institution for higher education, other than university, shall be deemed to be a University for the purposes of this Act, and on such declaration being made, all the provisions of this Act, shall apply to such institution as if it were a University within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2. By issuing notification under this provision, the Central Government has declared the respondent as "Deemed to be a University". Consequent upon, such a declaration being made the respondent has obtained right to confer degree. 14 09. It may not be out of place to mention that the initial declaration of deemed university was for a period of three years and the same has been renewed from time to time. A notification dated 27.06.2008, continuing the approval accorded earlier is subject to further conditions which are mentioned below the said communication. The added conditions obliges the deemed university to adhere to various requirements. 10. Guide lines are issued by the University Grants Commission for considering proposal for declaring institution "as deemed to be university". Under the said guide lines, the institution is expected to have a memorandum of association in conformity with the model document prepared by the University Grants Commission. Memorandum of association of the respondent No. 1 in Article No. 15 makes a provision for grievance removal machinery. It reads thus, "for dealing with individual grievances and complaint, the institute shall have a grievances removal machinery as may be prescribed in the bye- laws". The bye-laws framed under Article 15 provide for establishing a grievance committee for the university to deal with grievance of teachers and employees of the deemed university. The grievance committee is expected to submit report 15 to the Management Council. Under the said bye-laws grievance committee includes the Chairman, nominated by the Chancellor along with other members. It does appear that the grievance committee constituted by the bye-laws framed by the deemed university under Article 15 of the memorandum of association is on the same lines on which the grievance committee is constituted under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act. No doubt, the grievance committee of the respondent would have no statutory flavour. 11. In the submission of learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 5 Shri Hon, once a institute is declared as a "deemed to be a university" by issuing a notification under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, by the Central Government on the advice of the University Grants Commission, the said institute for all purposes would be an independent autonomous body. It could not be subject to any supervision by any other university or authorities of that university. The said position is crystal clear from the scheme of the Maharashtra Universities Act, so also the University Grants Commission Act. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Bharti Vidyapeth v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 16 1943, if the provisions of both the Acts are examined, it can be safely said that the university incorporated under the Maharashtra Universities Act cannot have supervisory power over the functioning of the deemed university at least to the extent, it relates to entertaining of complaints of the employees of the deemed university. In our considered view, once a institute is declared to be a deemed university, it ceases to be institute affiliated to the erstwhile university and the erstwhile university and its authorities would ceases to have any supervision or control over the deemed university. Being of the view that, the grievance committee set up under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act will cease to have jurisdiction to continue to entertain and decide the complaint made by the present petitioners before it, once the institute is declared as "Deemed University". There is no illegality committed by the Pune University in holding that it ceases to have jurisdiction to deal with the complaints made to the grievance committee under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act and in forwarding the complaints to the grievance committee set up under the bye-laws by the respondents. 12. The learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Sharma 17 appearing for the respondent No. 11/University Grants Commission also submits that once an institute is declared as a deemed to be university, it would be an autonomous body. It is also submitted that the complaints of the petitioners pending with the Grievance Committee of Pune University cannot be continued to be considered before the said forum and need to be addressed to by the grievance committee constituted by the respondent. Thus, according to the University Grants Commission, as well the University of Pune and the Grievance Committee of Pune University cannot adjudicate the complaint and grievances made by the petitioners. 13. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners if it is so held then the petitioners' services would be vulnerable to the whims and fancies of the management of the respondents. True it is that the petitioners' may loose the statutory protection to their services which is other wise available under the Maharashtra Universities Act, however, having regard to the scheme of the Acts, the conclusion that we have reached is in- escapable. 14. In that view of the matter, we direct the grievance 18 committee set up by the respondent under its bye-laws to consider and decide the complaints of the present petitioners' touching their grievances in regard to non payment of salaries in the prescribed scale of pay, allowances, leave, other benefits, so also maintenance of seniority list, etc. as expeditiously as possible, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Thus the petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [A. P. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Feb.2010