1 cri-wp-3243-10.doc pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3243 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 328 OF 2011 Sachin Balu Shinde ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents Mr. Gunratan Sadavarte for petitioner. Mr. Y. S. Shinde, APP for State. Mr. Rui Rodriques for respondent no.4. Mr. Dinesh C. Patankar for respondent no.5. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 21, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Sadavarte, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physical Education with the University of Mumbai. The prayers in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read as under:- “(a) This Hon’ble Court by invoking writ jurisdiction under 2 cri-wp-3243-10.doc Article 226 of the Constitution of India, be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction and direct the Respondent No.3 to register First Information Report under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. (b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct that in respect of complaint at Exhibit -A and other complaints, the said complaint are against the Respondent No.5 in respect of misuse of word “sexual harassment” and linguistic discrimination the petitioner and other lecturers have been harassed by the respondent no.5 for the said cause the said inquiry may kindly be transferred to any Judicial Officer under this Hon’ble Court. (c) This Hon’ble Court may kindly handover the investigation to the State CID, or some other police officer in the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police with further direction to conduct the prompt investigation in respect to the said complaint of cognizable offence in respect of linguistic discrimination, false allegation of sexual 3 cri-wp-3243-10.doc harassment and in respect of the complaint of malpractice i.e. Exhibit E and to submit the report in that regard to this Hon’ble Court.” 2. On 17/10/2010, the petitioner submitted a complaint to the Senior Inspector of Police, Bandra – Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai alleging that ill-treatment / misbehaviour on the part of respondent no.5, who is the In-charge Head of the Department of Physical Education. On the next date i.e. on 18/10/2010 the petitioner submitted a representation to the Vice Chancellor, University of Mumbai and complained against respondent no.5. Petitioner also submitted a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai on 19/10/2010 against respondent no.5. In his oral arguments before us, Mr. Sadavarte, submitted before us that respondent no.5 does not possess the requisite qualifications and she got into the University on the basis of fake degree certificates. 3. So far as the allegations of fake degree certificates are concerned, it goes to the root of the eligibility of the Professor or Assistant Professor appointed to the said post. Section 76 of the 4 cri-wp-3243-10.doc Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 deals with the procedure for selection and appointment of University teachers. The selection is made on the basis of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and by following the procedure laid down in the said section. Sub-section (7) of Section 76 states that if, on a petition by any person directly affected, or suo motu, the Chancellor, after making or having made such inquiries or obtaining or having obtained such explanations, including explanations from the teachers whose appointments are likely to be affected, as may be or may have been necessary, is satisfied that the appointment of a teacher of the university, made by any authority or officer of the university at any time was not in accordance with the law at that time in force, he, may, by order, terminate the appointment after giving one month’s notice. It is thus clear that under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, a specific procedure has been set out so as to enquire into the educational qualifications and consequently, the eligibility of any teacher appointed. It is not for the police to enquire into whether a particular certificate was fake or otherwise. This is the job to be undertaken by the competent authority under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and the police must keep off their hands from such enquiry. 5 cri-wp-3243-10.doc 4. So far as the petitioner’s grievance about the misbehaviour of or ill-treatment by respondent no.5 is concerned, in our opinion, the petitioner also has a remedy for the same under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. We are informed by Mr. Sadavarte that such a representation has already been submitted by the petitioner to the Grievance Committee and if that be so, we direct respondent no.4 to take further appropriate steps so as to place the petitioner’s representation before the Grievance Committee, which will decide the said representation as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 31/9/2011. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of the Grievance Committee, he is at liberty to take further appropriate legal proceedings. 5. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 6. Criminal Application No. 328 of 2011 does not survive and stand disposed as such. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)