[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6661 OF 2008 Shri Rajendra Waman Rajemane .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents Shri Dilip Bodake for the Petitioner. Shri R.M. Patne, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri Milind Deshmukh for Respondent No.5. Shri A.M. Joshi for Respondent Nos.8 & 9. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: DECEMBER 18, 2008 P.C: P.C: P.C: 1. The challenge in the petition is to an order of the Grievance Committee of the Shivaji University dated 17-6-2008 by which the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Head Clerk and thereafter to the post of Superintendent has been held to be irregular. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not heard by the Grievance Committee before the decision which was communicated on 17-6-2008. The second relief which has been sought in prayer clause (b) is for a direction to the Management-fifth respondent to permit the petitioner to resume duty as Office Superintendent. 2. Insofar as the first part of the grievance is concerned, the petitioner has a tenable case in law. The decision of the Grievance Committee holding that the [2] appointment of the petitioner was irregular would affect his rights and consequently the principles of natural justice ought to have been observed before a decision was arrived at. Admittedly, the petitioner was not heard before the decision was arrived at. The Shivaji University has been duly served but has failed to enter appearance. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Management has not disputed that the petitioner was not heard by the Grievance Committee. In the circumstances, the decision of the Grievance Committee as communicated on 17-6-2008 by the letter at Exhibit-K to the petition is set aside and the proceedings shall stand remitted back to the Grievance Committee. The Grievance Committee shall be at liberty to take a fresh decision after furnishing an opportunity of being heard to all the affected parties, including the petitioner. The Grievance Committee shall arrive at its decision upon remand within a period of three months from the date on which the copy of this order is placed on the file of the Committee. All the contentions are kept open. 3. Insofar as the second aspect of the grievance is concerned, it emerges from the record that the services of the petitioner had been terminated on 2-9-2008. The communication is annexed at Exhibit-L to the petition. The order of termination is amenable to an appeal before [3] the University and College Tribunal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. In the circumstances, the petitioner would have to be relegated to pursue his statutory remedy that is available against such an order of termination. The petitioner would be at liberty to do so. 4. The petition shall accordingly stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) sjs/D8wp6661.8 sjs/D8wp6661.8 sjs/D8wp6661.8