1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5649 OF 1999 WRIT PETITION NO.5649 OF 1999 WRIT PETITION NO.5649 OF 1999 Miss. Manjiri Krishna Pandit Aged adult, Occ: Service Residing at 439 Shukrawar Peth Pune-411 002. ...Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Maharashtra 2. The Director of Education (Higher Education) Maharashtra State Central Building, Pune. 3. The University of Pune Ganeshkhind Road, Pune-411 007. 4. Shikshan Prasarak Mandali Sir Parshurambhau College Compound, Sadashiv Peth, Pune-411 030. 5. The Principal Sir Parshurambhau College Sadashiv Peth, Pune-411 030. 6. Mrs. Sanjot Nitin Apte, Aged adult, Occ: Service Residing at available at Sir Parshurambhau College, Sadashiv Peth, Pune-411 030. 7. The President Grievance Committee Pune University Ganeshkhind Road, Pune-411 007. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Sanjay Kshirsagar Adv. for Petitioner Mrs.M. Thakur, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr. Girish Kulkarni for Mrs. M.G. Kulkarni Adv. for Respondent Nos.3 & 7. Mr. Rajesh P. Behere Adv. for Respondent Nos.4 & 5 CORAM: H.L.GOKHALE & CORAM: H.L.GOKHALE & CORAM: H.L.GOKHALE & SMT.R.S.DALVI,JJ. SMT.R.S.DALVI,JJ. SMT.R.S.DALVI,JJ. DATED: 31ST AUGUST, 2005 DATED: 31ST AUGUST, 2005 DATED: 31ST AUGUST, 2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER H.L. GOKHALE, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER H.L. GOKHALE, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER H.L. GOKHALE, J.) 1. The Petitioner herein is a Lecturer in 1. The Petitioner herein is a Lecturer in 1. The Petitioner herein is a Lecturer in 2 Political Science working in the Sir Parshurambhau Political Science working in the Sir Parshurambhau Political Science working in the Sir Parshurambhau College run by Respondent No.4 Institution. She College run by Respondent No.4 Institution. She College run by Respondent No.4 Institution. She joined in the College as a part-time Professor in joined in the College as a part-time Professor in joined in the College as a part-time Professor in September 1992. Her services were terminated in September 1992. Her services were terminated in September 1992. Her services were terminated in February 1995 on the ground that though she was February 1995 on the ground that though she was February 1995 on the ground that though she was belonging to the Other Backward Class, the post on belonging to the Other Backward Class, the post on belonging to the Other Backward Class, the post on which she was appointed was meant for a Schedule Caste which she was appointed was meant for a Schedule Caste which she was appointed was meant for a Schedule Caste candidate. That order was set aside by the University candidate. That order was set aside by the University candidate. That order was set aside by the University Tribunal and she was allowed to resume. She was again Tribunal and she was allowed to resume. She was again Tribunal and she was allowed to resume. She was again terminated from 5th August 1996 for another reason and terminated from 5th August 1996 for another reason and terminated from 5th August 1996 for another reason and that termination was also interfered and the that termination was also interfered and the that termination was also interfered and the University Tribunal allowed her Appeal. University Tribunal allowed her Appeal. University Tribunal allowed her Appeal. 2. One Mr. Shitole was working as a full-time 2. One Mr. Shitole was working as a full-time 2. One Mr. Shitole was working as a full-time Professor in this department and he retired in 1995. Professor in this department and he retired in 1995. Professor in this department and he retired in 1995. It was the case of the Petitioner that she should have It was the case of the Petitioner that she should have It was the case of the Petitioner that she should have been absorbed in that full-time vacancy but one Mrs. been absorbed in that full-time vacancy but one Mrs. been absorbed in that full-time vacancy but one Mrs. Apte was appointed on that post. Although the Apte was appointed on that post. Although the Apte was appointed on that post. Although the Petitioner contends that she should have been Petitioner contends that she should have been Petitioner contends that she should have been appointed on that post, Mr. Kshirsagar learned appointed on that post, Mr. Kshirsagar learned appointed on that post, Mr. Kshirsagar learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner does not dispute Counsel appearing for the Petitioner does not dispute Counsel appearing for the Petitioner does not dispute that the appointment of Mrs. Apte was not challenged that the appointment of Mrs. Apte was not challenged that the appointment of Mrs. Apte was not challenged by the Petitioner by resorting to any proceedings for by the Petitioner by resorting to any proceedings for by the Petitioner by resorting to any proceedings for that purpose. that purpose. that purpose. 3. It so happened that the head of the Political 3. It so happened that the head of the Political 3. It so happened that the head of the Political Science Department one Mr. Deo retired on 31st Science Department one Mr. Deo retired on 31st Science Department one Mr. Deo retired on 31st January 2001. The Petitioner asserts, and the January 2001. The Petitioner asserts, and the January 2001. The Petitioner asserts, and the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 do not dispute, that the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 do not dispute, that the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 do not dispute, that the 3 lectures of Prof. Deo were shifted to the Petitioner lectures of Prof. Deo were shifted to the Petitioner lectures of Prof. Deo were shifted to the Petitioner and she has been taking all those lectures thereafter. and she has been taking all those lectures thereafter. and she has been taking all those lectures thereafter. It is her grievance that she has not been regularised It is her grievance that she has not been regularised It is her grievance that she has not been regularised in that post as a full-time Professor and has not been in that post as a full-time Professor and has not been in that post as a full-time Professor and has not been paid the salary of a full-time Professor since then. paid the salary of a full-time Professor since then. paid the salary of a full-time Professor since then. This Petition although seeks through prayer clause This Petition although seeks through prayer clause This Petition although seeks through prayer clause (d), regularisation from 6th June 1996 in the vacancy (d), regularisation from 6th June 1996 in the vacancy (d), regularisation from 6th June 1996 in the vacancy of Mr. Shitole, in view of the statement made by Mr. of Mr. Shitole, in view of the statement made by Mr. of Mr. Shitole, in view of the statement made by Mr. Kshirsagar the said prayer no longer survives. He is Kshirsagar the said prayer no longer survives. He is Kshirsagar the said prayer no longer survives. He is however keen on prayer clause F1, F2 and F3 which are however keen on prayer clause F1, F2 and F3 which are however keen on prayer clause F1, F2 and F3 which are prayers regarding the post which became available prayers regarding the post which became available prayers regarding the post which became available after the retirement of Prof. Deo. These prayers after the retirement of Prof. Deo. These prayers after the retirement of Prof. Deo. These prayers seek that it be declared that the Petitioner is seek that it be declared that the Petitioner is seek that it be declared that the Petitioner is working on a full-time post from 20th June 2001 and working on a full-time post from 20th June 2001 and working on a full-time post from 20th June 2001 and that her salary be released on that footing. The that her salary be released on that footing. The that her salary be released on that footing. The Petition has been admitted in November 2000. The Petition has been admitted in November 2000. The Petition has been admitted in November 2000. The Respondents have filed their reply and rejoinders. Respondents have filed their reply and rejoinders. Respondents have filed their reply and rejoinders. The Petition annexes the Representations made by the The Petition annexes the Representations made by the The Petition annexes the Representations made by the Petitioner to the Grievance Committee of the Petitioner to the Grievance Committee of the Petitioner to the Grievance Committee of the University and the decision of the Grievance University and the decision of the Grievance University and the decision of the Grievance Committee. The Grievance was with respect to the Committee. The Grievance was with respect to the Committee. The Grievance was with respect to the Petitioner’s post not being converted to a full-time Petitioner’s post not being converted to a full-time Petitioner’s post not being converted to a full-time post in 1996. But the Petitioner could not produce post in 1996. But the Petitioner could not produce post in 1996. But the Petitioner could not produce any proof to that effect or that she was taking any any proof to that effect or that she was taking any any proof to that effect or that she was taking any such extra lectures. There is no dispute that in 1996 such extra lectures. There is no dispute that in 1996 such extra lectures. There is no dispute that in 1996 she was not allotted any such extra lectures. The she was not allotted any such extra lectures. The she was not allotted any such extra lectures. The Grievance Committee therefore disposed of that Grievance Committee therefore disposed of that Grievance Committee therefore disposed of that complaint and as stated earlier now that dispute is no complaint and as stated earlier now that dispute is no complaint and as stated earlier now that dispute is no longer being raised. longer being raised. longer being raised. 4 4. As far as the claim of the Petitioner from 4. As far as the claim of the Petitioner from 4. As far as the claim of the Petitioner from 20th June 2001 is concerned the College is not 20th June 2001 is concerned the College is not 20th June 2001 is concerned the College is not disputing that she has been taking full-time lectures. disputing that she has been taking full-time lectures. disputing that she has been taking full-time lectures. There is a Government decision of 8th August 1996 There is a Government decision of 8th August 1996 There is a Government decision of 8th August 1996 which shows that when a part-time Teacher is appointed which shows that when a part-time Teacher is appointed which shows that when a part-time Teacher is appointed to a full-time post it is not necessary to go through to a full-time post it is not necessary to go through to a full-time post it is not necessary to go through entire selection process once again. This G.R. is entire selection process once again. This G.R. is entire selection process once again. This G.R. is annexed to the reply filed by Mrs. Aruna Venchurkar, annexed to the reply filed by Mrs. Aruna Venchurkar, annexed to the reply filed by Mrs. Aruna Venchurkar, the Joint Director Higher Education. This being the the Joint Director Higher Education. This being the the Joint Director Higher Education. This being the position there is no difficulty as far as the position there is no difficulty as far as the position there is no difficulty as far as the regularisation of the Petitioner in the post is regularisation of the Petitioner in the post is regularisation of the Petitioner in the post is concerned. The only problem is that the College did concerned. The only problem is that the College did concerned. The only problem is that the College did not forward the necessary papers to the Joint not forward the necessary papers to the Joint not forward the necessary papers to the Joint Director, Higher Education the Respondent No.2 herein. Director, Higher Education the Respondent No.2 herein. Director, Higher Education the Respondent No.2 herein. 5. Mrs. Thakur, learned A.G.P. has emphasised 5. Mrs. Thakur, learned A.G.P. has emphasised 5. Mrs. Thakur, learned A.G.P. has emphasised in this respect and has pointed out that the in this respect and has pointed out that the in this respect and has pointed out that the Government can’t be blamed for not clearing the higher Government can’t be blamed for not clearing the higher Government can’t be blamed for not clearing the higher salary if the necessary papers were not forwarded by salary if the necessary papers were not forwarded by salary if the necessary papers were not forwarded by the College. Mr. Behere, learned Counsel appearing the College. Mr. Behere, learned Counsel appearing the College. Mr. Behere, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 4 and 5 on the other hand pointed for the Respondents 4 and 5 on the other hand pointed for the Respondents 4 and 5 on the other hand pointed out that the College could not have forwarded any such out that the College could not have forwarded any such out that the College could not have forwarded any such papers, since according to his instructions there was papers, since according to his instructions there was papers, since according to his instructions there was some ban of the Government on recruiting any such some ban of the Government on recruiting any such some ban of the Government on recruiting any such further persons. We are not much impressed by the further persons. We are not much impressed by the further persons. We are not much impressed by the submission of Mr. Behere as nothing prevented the submission of Mr. Behere as nothing prevented the submission of Mr. Behere as nothing prevented the College from entering into correspondence with the College from entering into correspondence with the College from entering into correspondence with the Director of Higher Education particularly if the Director of Higher Education particularly if the Director of Higher Education particularly if the 5 College wanted the Petitioner to take extra lectures College wanted the Petitioner to take extra lectures College wanted the Petitioner to take extra lectures and at the same time taking a stand that it was not and at the same time taking a stand that it was not and at the same time taking a stand that it was not liable to make payment since it is an aided liable to make payment since it is an aided liable to make payment since it is an aided institution and that the responsibility was that of institution and that the responsibility was that of institution and that the responsibility was that of the Government. the Government. the Government. 6. In any case the fact remains that the 6. In any case the fact remains that the 6. In any case the fact remains that the submissions of the Petitioner are not resisted by submissions of the Petitioner are not resisted by submissions of the Petitioner are not resisted by Respondents 4 and 5 that the Petitioner has been Respondents 4 and 5 that the Petitioner has been Respondents 4 and 5 that the Petitioner has been working as a full-time Lecturer from 20th June 2001 working as a full-time Lecturer from 20th June 2001 working as a full-time Lecturer from 20th June 2001 When Prof. Deo retired. This being the position and When Prof. Deo retired. This being the position and When Prof. Deo retired. This being the position and also in view of the fact that, the concerned College also in view of the fact that, the concerned College also in view of the fact that, the concerned College is an Aided Institution we do not see as to why the is an Aided Institution we do not see as to why the is an Aided Institution we do not see as to why the arrears of pay at the scale payable to the full-time arrears of pay at the scale payable to the full-time arrears of pay at the scale payable to the full-time Lecturer should not be paid to the Petitioner. All Lecturer should not be paid to the Petitioner. All Lecturer should not be paid to the Petitioner. All that has happened is that the Government has saved the that has happened is that the Government has saved the that has happened is that the Government has saved the money which would have gone to the Petitioner much money which would have gone to the Petitioner much money which would have gone to the Petitioner much earlier and Government cannot take advantage of the earlier and Government cannot take advantage of the earlier and Government cannot take advantage of the situation. The Officer concerned tried to raise this situation. The Officer concerned tried to raise this situation. The Officer concerned tried to raise this issue. It is nobody’s case that these lectures of issue. It is nobody’s case that these lectures of issue. It is nobody’s case that these lectures of Prof. Deo were being taken by any other Lecturer or Prof. Deo were being taken by any other Lecturer or Prof. Deo were being taken by any other Lecturer or that any other Lecturer was paid for the work which that any other Lecturer was paid for the work which that any other Lecturer was paid for the work which was earlier being taken from Prof. Deo. We totally was earlier being taken from Prof. Deo. We totally was earlier being taken from Prof. Deo. We totally disapprove the approach of the Government in this disapprove the approach of the Government in this disapprove the approach of the Government in this behalf. The Petitioner has unnecessarily suffered behalf. The Petitioner has unnecessarily suffered behalf. The Petitioner has unnecessarily suffered because of the College not forwarding the necessary because of the College not forwarding the necessary because of the College not forwarding the necessary papers to the authorities of the Government but at the papers to the authorities of the Government but at the papers to the authorities of the Government but at the same time Government cannot shirk its responsibility same time Government cannot shirk its responsibility same time Government cannot shirk its responsibility in paying her according to the scale. in paying her according to the scale. in paying her according to the scale. 6 7. In the circumstances we allow this Petition. 7. In the circumstances we allow this Petition. 7. In the circumstances we allow this Petition. It will be open to the Authorities of the Respondent It will be open to the Authorities of the Respondent It will be open to the Authorities of the Respondent No.2 to visit the concerned College and to scrutinise No.2 to visit the concerned College and to scrutinise No.2 to visit the concerned College and to scrutinise the record and to find out as to whether the the record and to find out as to whether the the record and to find out as to whether the Petitioner did take the lectures. This is provided Petitioner did take the lectures. This is provided Petitioner did take the lectures. This is provided the Officers of Respondent No.2 are keen on that and the Officers of Respondent No.2 are keen on that and the Officers of Respondent No.2 are keen on that and they may do so in four weeks. On an intimation from they may do so in four weeks. On an intimation from they may do so in four weeks. On an intimation from the third Respondent, the fourth or fifth Respondent the third Respondent, the fourth or fifth Respondent the third Respondent, the fourth or fifth Respondent will make available the attendance and other relevant will make available the attendance and other relevant will make available the attendance and other relevant record. On their scrutinising the record if they do record. On their scrutinising the record if they do record. On their scrutinising the record if they do not find that the Petitioner had not taken the not find that the Petitioner had not taken the not find that the Petitioner had not taken the lectures, the Respondent No.2 will fix the salary of lectures, the Respondent No.2 will fix the salary of lectures, the Respondent No.2 will fix the salary of the Petitioner as per the scale at the end of the 4 the Petitioner as per the scale at the end of the 4 the Petitioner as per the scale at the end of the 4 weeks and also clear the arrears on the basis of the weeks and also clear the arrears on the basis of the weeks and also clear the arrears on the basis of the correct pay which was to be given to the Petitioner correct pay which was to be given to the Petitioner correct pay which was to be given to the Petitioner from 20th June 2001. from 20th June 2001. from 20th June 2001. 8. The Petitioner will be treated as full-time 8. The Petitioner will be treated as full-time 8. The Petitioner will be treated as full-time Lecturer from 20th June 2001 in the concerned College Lecturer from 20th June 2001 in the concerned College Lecturer from 20th June 2001 in the concerned College of Respondent No.4 and will be eligible for all other of Respondent No.4 and will be eligible for all other of Respondent No.4 and will be eligible for all other benefits. The post will be treated as converted to benefits. The post will be treated as converted to benefits. The post will be treated as converted to that of full-time Lecturer. that of full-time Lecturer. that of full-time Lecturer. 9. Rule made absolute as above though without any 9. Rule made absolute as above though without any 9. Rule made absolute as above though without any order as to costs. order as to costs. order as to costs. (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) 7 (SMT.R.S.DALVI,J.) (SMT.R.S.DALVI,J.) (SMT.R.S.DALVI,J.)