1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 787/2009 ( Dr. Indermohan Premnath Sarin .vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. R.R. Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. N.W. Sambre, G.P. for Respondents 1,2 & 5. Mrs. S.N. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondents No.3 & 4. Mr. B.G. Kulkarni & Mr. J.B. Jaiswal Advocate for Respondent No.6. .......... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : MAY 03, 2010 ORDERS ON SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO RESPONDENT NO.2 & MR. F.K. BHAGAT, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, (COLLEGIATE) R.S.T.M. NAGPUR UNIVERSITY/RESPONDENT NO.6. Heard. The petitioner has challenged the order declaring him surplus. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner was declared surplus on an earlier occasion and had approached this Court. This Court had vide decision in Writ Petition No. 1974 of 2008 rendered on 2.7.2008 come to the conclusion that the petitioner had been wrongly declared surplus. The Court accordingly 2 directed the respondents to hear the petitioner and take a fresh decision. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a gross breach of the judgment of this Court dated 2.7.2008 since again the petitioner has been declared surplus by applying norms framed by the Adhoc Committee which requires the respondents to calculate the workload on the basis of four period of practicals, even though the norms that must be applied are those framed the Executive Council which require the respondents to take into account six period for the purpose of calculating the workload. Mr. Deshpande submitted that the respondents could not have again applied the Adhoc Committee Norms and declared the petitioner surplus within a period of five months. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Writ petition No. 1974/2008 dated 2.7.2008 wherein this Court had held that the Government is not entitled to insist upon applying the norms laid down by the Adhoc Committee of the University instead of the norms laid down by the Executive Council of the Nagpur University and held that the workload should be calculated on the basis of six periods of theory and six periods of practical and not four. Since there appeared to be disobedience of the order of this Court, we issued notice calling upon the respondents no.2 – Joint Director of Education, Nagpur Region, Nagpur and Mr. F.K. Bhagat, Assistant Registrar (Collegiate) R.S.T.M. Nagpur University to show cause as to why action for contempt of Court should not be initiated against them for issuing orders contrary to the 3 judgment of this Court. The Joint Director appeared in person and stated that the mistake occurred because he applied the norms of four period in accordance with the instructions of the Assistant Registrar of the University. Mr. Bhagat, Assistant Registrar has appeared and stated that the Adhoc Committee Norms were applied by mistake. It is, however, not clear from the affidavits of either of the respondents how the mistake has occurred. Both the respondents have stated that they have understood their mistake and they have withdrawn the impugned orders/letters against the petitioner who ought not to have been declared surplus and they have also tendered unconditional apology to this Court. We have considered whether willful disobedience of the earlier judgment in W.P. No. 2842 of 1992 can be attributed to the respondents or not. We find that though the petitioner has raised the issue of whether the Executive Council Norms should be applied or whether the Adhoc Committee Norms should be applied, this Court while deciding Writ Petition No. 1974 of 2008 did not specifically pronounce upon that issue in the case of the petitioner and instead observed that normally the policy of declaring the junior most teacher as surplus could not be have been bypassed by virtue of the letter dated 25.8.1999 issued by the Under Secretary. The judgment of this Court does not decide the question as to which norms should be applied in the petitioner’s case. It is, therefore, difficult to attribute any willful intention to disobey the order of this Court. However, it is found that the respondents 4 were bound to follow the law laid down by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2842/1992 on 11.8.1993. The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents no.1,2 and 5 so also the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 do not dispute the applicability of the judgment. The Joint Director of Education represented by Mr. Sambre, learned Government Pleader submits that he decided the present issue pertaining to the petitioner on the advice given by respondent no.6 who is Registrar of the R.S.T.M. Nagpur University. We find that it is possible that the present respondent was not aware about the findings in the judgment rendered in the year 1993 and might have through non-application of mind followed the Adhoc Committee Norms instead of Executive Council Norms which he was bound to follow. This has accordingly resulted in a gross erroneous decision which the respondent has withdrawn upon realizing the error. In the circumstances we find that there was no intention to disobey the order of this Court and accept the unconditional apology tendered by the respondents. Mr. Sambre, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent no.2 and Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 have assured this Court that they would evolve some procedure by which the judgments of this Court are taken into account before taking any such decision and that such a mistake will not be repeated. In the circumstances, we discharge the contempt notice. 5 Writ Petition No.787/2009 The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents no.1,2 and 5 states that the impugned order has been withdrawn by the respondents and as such the petition has become infructuous. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner is required to approach this Court twice against the same illegal action of being declared surplus. We find that though the impugned order is withdrawn, indeed that was wholly unjustified and unwarranted. In the circumstances, we direct Mr. Ajit Deshmukh, respondent No.2 – Joint Director of Education, Nagpur Region, Nagpur and Mr. F.K. Bhagat, Assistant Registrar (Collegiate), R.S.T. M. Nagpur University to pay costs in the sum of Rs.5000/- each to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. The petition stands disposed of as infructuous. JUDGE JUDGE halwai