: 1 : wp.9967.2010 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9967 OF 2010 Central Hindu Military Education Society Nashik & anr. .. Petitioners V/s. Dr.Jawad Asgar Khan & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.V.J. Dixit, Sr. Counsel I/b A.J. Kandarkar and S.B. Yawalkar for the Petitioners Dr.Jawad Asgar Khan, Respondent No.1 in person Ms.S.S. Bhende, AGP, for Resp. Nos.2 & 5 CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON: SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 JUDGEMENT DELIVERED ON: OCTOBER 12, 2011 JUDGMENT (PER SMT.MHATRE, J.): 1. The Petitioners have impugned the decision of the grievance committee set up by the University of Pune and the order issued by the Management Council of the University of Pune on 27.8.2010 accepting the recommendations of the grievances committee. 2. The brief facts involved in the present petition are as follows: Petitioner No.1 is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public : 2 : wp.9967.2010 Trust Act, 1950 and the Societies Registration Act. Petitioner No.2 is the Principal of the one of the schools managed by petitioner No.1. Respondent No.1, an employee of the petitioners filed complaint bearing No.9 of 2007 before the Grievances Committee, Pune against the Principal of the Bhonsala Military College alleging that she had prevented him from pursuing his post doctoral research. He had been granted a research award and wished to undertake his post doctoral research in the Bhonsala Military College, Nashik of which Petitioner No.2 is the Principal. According to Respondent No.1, petitioner No.2 refused to sign a joining report which was required for the commencement of work for the research award of the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as `UGC'). The petitioners instead informed the UGC that Respondent No.1 should be placed in a recognised research centre in order to pursue his research as the Bhonsala Military College was not a recognised research centre. Respondent No.1 has in essence contended in his complaint that petitioner No.2 had refused to cooperate with him for pursuing his research as her application for the same award was rejected and that professional rivalry had caused her to behave in this manner. 3. Petitioner No.2 submitted a reply to the complaint of : 3 : wp.9967.2010 Respondent No.1 before the Grievances Committee, denying the several allegations levelled made by him. It was also contended that the Bhonsala Military College was not an approved research centre for the subject of defence and strategic studies for which Respondent No.1 had been granted a UGC research award for three years. It was contended that in order to pursue his research, Respondent No.1 would have to be relieved from his duties in the college and it would be necessary for him to be placed in another research centre which was approved by the UGC. According to Petitioner No.2 once Respondent No.1 was relieved from service his post would be occupied by a suitable candidate for teaching the students. 4. The Grievances Committee heard both the parties and by its impugned order held that Respondent No.1 had been granted the research award by the UGC considering his application and all the relevant material. The Grievances Committee, therefore, recommended that the petitioners should aid and support Respondent No.1 to enable him to pursue his post doctoral research awarded by the UGC and that if they failed to do so, action should be taken against the petitioners in accordance with law. : 4 : wp.9967.2010 5. The Management Council constituted under the Maharashtra Universities Act by its impugned order dated 27.8.2010 accepted the recommendations made by the Grievances Committee. 6. Mr.Dixit, appearing for the Petitioners, submitted before us that the Grievances Committee had no jurisdiction to make any recommendations with respect to the post doctoral research. According to him, the Committee could consider only such disputes where the facts were admitted and not where the committee would have to act as a quasi judicial body. He then submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Grievances Committee as well as the Management Council are erroneous and passed without any application of mind. The Counsel also submitted that Respondent No.1 could not be permitted to pursue his post doctoral research in a centre which is not recognised for defence studies by the UGC. He submitted that the petitioners would have to relieve Respondent No.1 from his teaching assignments with the College and yet pay him salary for the period during which he worked on his research project if he continued his research work in the College. It was also urged that the Petitioners would be required to appoint or substitute Lecturer in the place of Respondent No.1 after the latter was appointed as a full time research : 5 : wp.9967.2010 fellow. 7. Respondent No.1, who appeared in person, submitted that the action of the petitioners was malafide. He further submitted that once he is relieved of his teaching assignments in the Bhonsala Military College, Nashik, the petitioners can always appoint some other person in his place till he completes his research. According to him, the substitute so appointed would be entitled to be paid by the Government since the Bhonsala Military College is a government aided institution. He would be entitled to funds from the UGC and, therefore, the petitioners would not have to incur any additional burden if he works on his research project in the Bhonsala Military College. 8. Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act provides for the constitution of a Grievances Committee in each University to deal with the grievances of teachers and other employees of the University, colleges, institutions and recognised institutions. The Grievances Committee is required to hear and settle the grievances brought to its notice as far as may be practicable, within six months and to submit a report to the management council of the respective university. The Grievances Committee is entitled to entertain and consider grievances : 6 : wp.9967.2010 or complaints which are not within the jurisdiction of the University and College Tribunal and submit a report to the management council for it to take such action as it deems fit. The decision of the Management Council on such reports is final. Thus the recommendations of the Grievances Committee when approved by the Management Council are considered as the decision of the University. 9. A bare perusal, therefore, of section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act indicates that all such grievances of teachers and other employees of universities or colleges can be placed before the Grievances Committee unless those grievances can be adjudicated upon by the University and College Tribunal. There can be no doubt that the grievances contained in the complaint of Respondent No.1 are not such as would lie before the Tribunal and therefore, Respondent No.1 was right in approaching the Grievances Committee. The submission of Mr.Dixit that the Committee had no jurisdiction to entertain the grievances of the petitioner is untenable. The reliance placed by him on the judgement of the Nagpur bench of this Court in Shri Saibaba Gramin Vikas Sanstha anr. vs. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University & Ors. (Letters Patent Appeal Nos.114/09, 115/09, 116/09 and 118/09) is also of no avail to the petitioners. The : 7 : wp.9967.2010 Division Bench has held that the Grievances Committee appointed under the Act is empowered to hear grievances and to prepare a report. It may or may not afford a hearing, depending upon the nature of the controversy and the facts in each case. The Court has further held that the Management Council which is to act on the report submitted by the Grievances Committee can exercise its powers to take a final decision in the matter only after hearing the parties concerned. In the present case, there is no pleading at all nor has any ground been raised in the petition that the petitioners were not heard either by the Grievances Committee or by the management Council. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel is unsustainable. All grievances which are related to service conditions or terms of service or related to work or enhancement of academic qualifications can be placed before the Grievances Committee as such grievances do not fall within the jurisdiction of the University and College Tribunal. 10. The submission of Mr.Dixit that Bhonsala Military College was not a recognised research centre for defence studies need not detain us. If indeed, it is not a research centre recognised by the UGC and the Respondent No.1 decides to pursue his post doctoral research in this institution, he may run the risk of his post doctoral research not : 8 : wp.9967.2010 being recognised. The Petitioners cannot stop Respondent No.1 from pursuing his research project in the Bhonsala Military College when the UGC has placed him in that college for pursuing his research. The UGC by its letter dated 11.9.2007 has informed petitioner No.2 that “as per the UGC Guidelines for research award Bhonsala Military College, Nashik is a research centre for all practical purposes”. In these circumstances, this submission of Mr.Dixit is also untenable. 11. Apart from this, once the Petitioners relieve Respondent No.1 from his teaching assignments they are entitled to appoint a substitute so that the students of the College do not suffer. The substitute so appointed would be entitled to salary paid by the Government since it is an aided college. The Petitioners would not have to pay Respondent No.1 as he would be entitled to funds from the UGC while pursuing his post doctoral research, and to the extent clarified by it. 12. The petition is therefore dismissed. We hope that the petitioners will ensure that all the necessary facilities are made available to Respondent No.1 to enable him pursue his post doctoral research award as expeditiously as possible. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)