1 WP1873.11 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. WRIT PETITION NO. 1873 OF 2011 Dr.Gulnar Sharma ... Petitioner v/s Vice Chancellor, Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Susheel Mahadeshwar i/by Ms.Ranjana Todankar for the petitioner. Mr.R.A.Rodrigues for respondents. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: 19TH OCTOBER, 2011 P.C.: 1. We have heard Mr.Mahadeshwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By an order dated 30.5.2009 the petitioner came to be appointed to the post of Director of Janaki Devi Bajaj Institute of Management Studies, which is run by the respondent University i.e. Shreemati Nathibai Damodar 2 WP1873.11 Thackersey Women’s Unversity (for short, the University). As per the said appointment order, the petitioner was required to undergo to probationary period of two years from the date of appointment of her service and she has joined on 1.6.2009. The probationary period would therefore expire on 31.5.2011, however, on 30.5.2011 the Registrar of the University passed an order informing the petitioner that the probationary period has been extended for one year i.e. up-to 31.5.2012. 3. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Grievance Committee and has also prayed for a declaration that she has been confirmed in service as Director of Janakidevi Bajaj Institute of Management Studies, w.e.f. 31.5.2011. 4. By the letter dated 12.9.2011 (Exh.J), the Registrar of the University has called upon the petitioner to remain present before the Grievance Committee which is scheduled to hear the complaint of Dr.Meera Shankar, Associate Professor. The subsequent letter dated 9.9.2011 (Exh.K) is a reminder to the petitioner to remain present before the Grievance Committee and the last communication under 3 WP1873.11 challenge in this petition is dated 12.9.2011 which is a written intimation to the petitioner to remain present before the Grievance Committee which is scheduled to hear the complaint of Ms.Anamika Singh, one of the teachers from the same institute. 5. The Grievance Committee has been constituted under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and it is a forum for the redressal of the teachers in the colleges as well as the universities. The complaints submitted by the teachers are also enquired into and the Grievance Committee records its recommendations after hearing of the parties concerned. The said recommendations are placed before the management Council University which takes a final decision and calls upon the institute concerned to comply with the recommendations, if so, required. Hence, the Grievance Committee is justified in calling upon the petitioner to remain present before it while the Committee is considering the complaints submitted by the other teachers/colleagues of the petitioner. In fact, a notice to the petitioner to appear before the Grievance Committee is in keeping with the principles of natural justice and prima facie the complaints of the teachers appear to be against the petitioner. 4 WP1873.11 6. So far as the second prayer of the petitioner for a declaration that she is confirmed in the post of Director w.e.f. 1.6.2011 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Clause 4 of Statute 14 and submitted that the requirements of the said clause were not satisfied and there was no material on the basis of which the order dated 30.5.2011 has been passed extending the probationary period of the petitioner by one year. It was urged that the conditions set out in Clause (4) of Statute 14 are condition precedent and unless the said procedure is followed, the power to extend the probationary period cannot be exercised by the University. Statute 14(4) reads as under:- “The assessment report of the Principals of conducted colleges and Heads of the University Departments on probation shall be maintained by the Vice Chancellor and Principals of Affiliated Colleges by the Chairman of the Governing Body and will be placed before the Executive Council/Governing Body at least two months before the date of expiry of the period of probation with definite recommendation of confirmation in service or extension of probationary period or otherwise. If a person stated above is not recommended to be confirmed or his period of probation is to be extended, an assessment report justifying the decision should be attached and such cases be placed before the Executive Council for consideration along with the assessment report.” 7. As noted earlier, a statutory body like the Grievance Committee has been established and, in our considered 5 WP1873.11 opinion, the petitioner ought to be relegated to the remedy to approach the Grievance Committee which would call upon both parties and consider the record, if any, and recommend its views to the management Council. When such an alternative statutory mechanism has been created under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, writ petition for the declaration prayed for need not be entertained. 8. Hence, the petition is rejected and the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Grievance Committee on her challenge to the extension of probationary period. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) 6 WP1873.11