(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3536 OF 1998 Rajendra s/o. Bhalchandra Sisode, Age : 36 years, Occupation : Service, As Physical Director, R/o. Nardana, Taluka : Shindkheda, District : Dhule. .. Petitioner. versus 1. North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, through its Vice-Chancellor. 2. The Chairman, Gramin Vikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Nardana, Taluka : Shindkheda, District : Dhule. 3. The Principal, Late Bhausaheb Madhukarrao Sisode Arts & Commerce College, Nardana, Taluka : Shindkheda, District : Dhule. 4. University Grants Commission, through its Chairman, Bhahadurshah Jafar Marg, New Delhi - 2. (2) 5. Secretary, Higher & Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Extension Building, Mumbai - 32. 6. Mahendra Pandurang Nagrale, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Late Bhausaheb Madhukarrao Sisode Arts and Commerce College, Nardana, Taluka : Shindkheda, District : Dhule. 7. President, Shrimati Parvatibai Bajirao Bagal Wangmay & Wanijya (Commerce) College, Dondaicha, Taluka : Shindkheda, District : Dhule. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. L.V. Sangit, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.B. Girase, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 and 3. Respondent no.4 served (Absent). Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent no.5. Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate, for respondent no.6. Mr. V.V. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent no.7. (3) ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 5TH AUGUST 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the letter dated 24th/28th January 1998, issued by the respondent no.1 / University, and the advertisement issued by the respondent no.2, for the post of Director of Physical Education. 2. The petitioner, who possesses the requisite qualification, was appointed as Physical Director, by the respondent no.2, in the year 1992. It is pertinent to note that the appointment of the petitioner was pursuant to the selection process carried out in accordance with law. In the said selection process, three persons were selected. The name of the petitioner was at Serial No.3. Since the candidates at Serial Nos.1 and 2 refused to join the services, an appointment order came to be issued to the petitioner on 1-8-1992. The petitioner was also made permanent in the year 1994. Thereafter, the petitioner was in continuous service till 31st July 1998. However, thereafter, it appears that the candidate, at Serial No.2 in the select list, made a complaint to the University and the same was placed before the (4) Grievance Committee, which directed refusal of approval to the appointment of the petitioner and, as such, the impugned order, dated 28th January 1998, came to be passed by the University. 3. Mr. L.V. Sangit, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that for no fault on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner has been denied his services. He submits that though the candidate, at Serial No.2 in the selection list, has objected to the petitioner's appointment, he has subsequently withdrawn the said objection and, as such, there was no occasion for the University to have withdrawn the approval. 4. Mr. A.B. Girase, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 / University, on the contrary, submits that since the Grievance Committee of the University has found, that the petitioner's appointment not to be in accordance with law, the University was required to issue the order impugned. 5. Prima facie, we find that the University was not justified in issuing the order dated 24th January 1998. The appointment order was issued way back on 1-8-1992 and the University ought not to have entertained the complaint after such a delay. In any event, if the University wanted to entertain the complaint of an aggrieved candidate, it was necessary for the University to have given a notice to the petitioner and also, an (5) opportunity of being heard before any order adverse to the interest of the petitioner is passed. Be that as it may, with the passage of time, the respondent no.6 has already been appointed in the respondent no.2 / school. We, therefore, do not find equitable to disturb the appointment of respondent no.6 after such a long period. 6. The respondent no.7 has filed an affidavit before this Court, that there is a vacant post available, of the Director of Physical Education, in the respondent no.7 / college. In the said affidavit, they have also stated that they are willing to absorb the petitioner on the said post. The Joint Director of Higher Education, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon, has also filed an affidavit that he has no objection to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on his absorption. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. (i) The impugned communication dated 28th January 1998, issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent no.1 / University, to the respondent no.3, to the extent, it refuses approval to the appointment of the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. (ii) The respondent no.7 is directed to absorb the petitioner, on (6) the post of Director of Physical Education. (iii) The Joint Director of Higher Education, Jalgaon, so also, the Registrar of respondent no.1 / University, are directed to grant approval to the absorption of the petitioner. (iv) We further direct that the petitioner shall be entitled to continuity in service, with effect from the date of his first appointment i.e. 1st August 1992. He shall also be entitled to all other consequential benefits flowing from continuity in service, except back wages. (v) It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to back wages for the period during which he has not worked. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, parties shall bear their own costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3536