1 311211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3112 OF 2011 Sou. Devibai Narayandas Chhabda Rural Education Society & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Shivaji University & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Anil Anturkar with Mr. S.B. Deshmukh for the Petitioners Mr. R.S. Khadapkar for Respondents No. 1 and 2 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 2ND MAY, 2011 P.C.:- Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. Diverse reliefs have been claimed in this petition. However, as is fairly accepted by the counsel for the petitioners, the controversy, essentially, is in respect of two aspects: Firstly, whether the stand of the petitioners of treating the former Principal, Dr. A.K. Bhat, as having been relieved with effect from January, 2011, is correct or the University can issue direction to the Management to relieve the 2 311211 said Dr. A.K. Bhat from the post of Principal of the petitioner-College with effect from April, 2010. The other incidental issue arises on account of the vacancy created by resignation of the said former Principal, Dr. A.K. Bhat, from the post of Principal of the petitioner- College. Whether the Management or the University is right in their stand with regard to the date of relieving Dr. A.K. Bhat from the post of Principal of the petitioner-College, the fact remains that, as of now, from January, 2011, there is no regularly appointed Principal of the petitioner-College. The petitioners have made pro-tem arrangement by appointing Dr. Patagundi as the Principal of the petitioner-College; but that is not by following the regular process of appointment as such. 3. As aforesaid, there is no regularly appointed Principal of the petitioner-College in any case from January, 2011. If it is so, the University is obliged to permit the petitioners to initiate the process for regular appointment of the Principal of the petitioner-College by inviting applications from prospective candidates. We, therefore, have no hesitation in directing the University to delink the issue of the date of relieving Dr.A.K.Bhat as Principal of the petitioner-college from the other issue of permitting the petitioners to initiate the regular process for appointing Principal of the petitioner-College from academic year 3 311211 2011-12. For that reason, the University shall immediately permit the petitioner-College to issue advertisement for appointing regular Principal of the petitioner-College from academic year 2011-12 and take the said advertisement to its logical end. 4. Insofar as the issue regarding Dr. A.K. Bhat to be treated as having been relieved by the petitioner-College with effect from April, 2010 or January, 2011, that aspect can be considered by the University on its own merits in accordance with law. If the University eventually takes the view that the petitioners are obliged to relieve Dr. A.K. Bhat from the post of Principal of the petitioner-College from April, 2010, it would be free to issue such direction as may be necessary against the petitioners in that behalf. Indeed, the petitioners, if aggrieved by such direction, would be free to question the correctness thereof, which challenge can be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. 5. We place on record the fair stand taken by the counsel for the University that whether the petitioners complete the process of appointing Principal by following the regular process of appointment or not, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat 4 311211 Ratna Indira Gandhi College & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2704 of 2011 and other connected matters, dated March 28, 2011), the University will not take coercive action against the petitioner-College on the ground of failure to appoint regular Principal of the College. At the same time, the petitioners, through counsel, assure to complete the appointment process for the post of Principal of the petitioner-College as expeditiously as possible, in any case within eight weeks from the date of permission given by the University to issue advertisement to the petitioners in terms of this order. The University shall process the proposed advertisement submitted by the petitioners and communicate its decision to the petitioners within two weeks from today. 6. At this stage, the counsel for the University invited our attention to the communication dated 17th September, 2010 and the Minutes of Meeting dated 30th November, 2010 to contend that the issue regarding relieving Dr. Bhat from the post of Principal of the petitioner-College has already been decided by the University. We fail to understand as to how these Minutes will come to the aid of the University. It is not clear as to whether the said meeting was in exercise of statutory powers exercised by the Director of College to 5 311211 answer the issue regarding the date of relieving Dr. Bhat from the post of Principal of the petitioner-College as such. Besides, the Minutes do not record any clear position as to Dr. Bhat should be treated as relieved from which date. In our opinion, therefore, that issue will have to be considered by the appropriate Authority of the University in accordance with law, which will have to be decided on its own merits after granting opportunity to all concerned, including the petitioners and respondent No. 5. 7. The counsel for the petitioners submits that, in view of the above, nothing survives for consideration in the petition. The same is disposed of in the above terms. MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.