1 998810 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9988 OF 2010 Shri A.P.D.J. Pathashala, Solaur, & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s Solapur University & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Girish Kulkarni with Ms. Swati Deshmukh and Mr. Hrishikesh Amembal i/by Mr. Sandeep Waghmare for the Petitioners Mr. I.M. Khairdi for Respondent No. 1 Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar i/by Mr. S.R. Ranghe for Respondent No. 2. CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.Y. GANOO , JJ. DATE: 27TH JULY, 2011 P.C.:- Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. Mr. I.M. Khairdi for respondent No. 1 and Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for respondent No. 2 waive service. 2 998810 3. As short question is involved, the petition is taken up forthwith for final disposal. 4. This petition by the college, essentially, takes exception to the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee as communicated to the college, Exhibit ‘X’, which, in turn, directs the college to forthwith issue Discharge Certificate in favour of respondent No. 2. The Committee has examined the matter only in the context of Rule 2, as is evident from the impugned communication. The argument of the petitioners in the present petition is that, while respondent No. 2 was in service, he attempted to seek employment on a post elsewhere. However, without following the procedure specified in provisions such as Statutes 204 to 207, he proceeded to seek employment in another college. In furtherance of advertisement issued by another college on 26th January, 2009, he applied for the post of Principal in that college while in service of the petitioner/college. 5. It is not in dispute that the procedure prescribed in Statute 205 has not been followed by respondent No. 2 before applying to the other college for appointment pursuant to advertisement dated 26th January, 2009. It is only when respondent No. 2 appeared in the 3 998810 interview before the University Selection Committee on 22nd April, 2009, that fact was unravelled as, incidentally, the principal of the petitioner-college was one of the members of the committee. As a result, he was not recommended by the University Selection Committee for appointment. However, respondent No. 2 succeeded in getting appointment on the recommendation of local committee of the other college. That appointment order was issued on 10th May, 2009. Even on that date, respondent No. 2 was in service of the petitioner- college. He submitted resignation only on 12th May, 2009 and immediately joined the other college on 13th May, 2009. Respondent No. 2 even did not wait for formal acceptance of his resignation by the petitioner-college. 6. Considering the provisions of Statutes, in particular Statute 205, it is amply clear that respondent No. 2 should have applied for the post in another college only after following the prescribed procedure. That procedure has not been resorted to at all. The fact that respondent No. 2 resigned on 12th May, 2009 does not absolve respondent No. 2 from the mandate of Statute 205. 4 998810 7. Be that as it may, as aforesaid, the Grievance Redressal Committee has merely adverted to Statute 200, which, in our opinion, deals with entirely different subject, i.e., makes provision regarding matters governing leave. The Grievance Redressal Committee has relied on clause (d) of sub-clause (v) of Statute 200 to answer the controversy on hand, which, in our opinion, has no application to the fact situation of the present case. 8. We, therefore, have no other option but to set aside the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee and relegate the parties before the Grievance Redressal Committee for re-consideration of the entire matter afresh on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations in the impugned decision or, for that matter, in the present matter. 9. The petition succeeds. The Rule is made absolute. The parties shall appear before the Grievance Redressal Committee on 16th August, 2011 when the Grievance Redressal Committee will schedule the hearing before it as per its convenience to ensure that final decision is rendered as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, not 5 998810 later than eight weeks therefrom. We, once again, make it clear that all questions are left open. 10. At this stage, the counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the matter will have to be examined by the Grievance Redressal Committee in the context of the fresh advertisement issued by the other college on 26th November, 2009. In our opinion, if the act of respondent No. 2 in seeking appointment elsewhere while in service of the petitioner-college is hit by the provision of Statute 205, for the same reason, respondent No. 2 will not be entitled for being considered on the basis of the subsequent development as well, until the mandatory procedure under Statute 205 is adhered to. R.Y. GANOO, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.