1 wp 7445.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7445 OF 2009 Rajendra S/o Kisanrao Shinde, Age : 48 Years, Occu. : Service, At present serving in College of Agriculture, Parola Road, Dhule. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Agriculture & Animal Husbandry, Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeet, Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its Registrar. 3. The Grievance Committee, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeet, Rahuri, Through its Member Secretary and The Dy. Registrar (Adm), Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeet, Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar, .. .. Respondents Shri C. K. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri M. N. Navandar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2 wp 7445.09 CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 09TH AUGUST, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. Initially the present writ petition was filed seeking appointment as Office Superintendent with the respondent No. 2 as per its advertisement dated 05.04.2005. Subsequently, the petition was amended and thereafter the order dated 17.09.2007 passed by the Grievance Committee was also challenged. 3. Shri C. K. Shinde, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was eligible to be considered for the appointment and should have been appointed as Office Superintendent as per the advertisement of the year 2005. The experience which the petitioner had when in service with the Defence is not at all considered. The same is required to be considered. The eligibility criteria as laid down in the advertisement for the post of Office Superintendent was possessed by the petitioner, but the same was not at all considered. The learned counsel contends that even the 3 wp 7445.09 grievance committee has not considered the same and has dismissed its complaint without assigning any reasons. No reasons are detailed while rejecting the complaint by the grievance committee. It has only said that the experience while working with the Defence is not equivalent to the experience as sought in the advertisement for the post of Office Superintendent. 4. Shri Navandar, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the authority and the grievance committee have properly considered the aspect and had rightly negatived the claim of the petitioner, as on the relevant time the petitioner was not satisfying the eligibility criteria which was laid down for the post of the Office Superintendent. Shri Navandar, the learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is now appointed as office superintendent and the same has been stated in the affidavit in reply filed by the present respondent No. 2. 5. Shri Navandar, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 further contends that he has already prepared the affidavit in reply to the amendment which is made in the petition and the same can be filed within a period of one week. 4 wp 7445.09 6. I have gone through the order passed by the grievance committee. The order does not give the details about the facts considered by the Grievance Committee. The grievance committee was performing a quasi-judicial act. When the authority performs quasi-judicial act and passes an order it is expected to give reasons. Reasons are the life-line of any quasi- judicial order. They depict the application of mind of the authorities. In the present case, the order passed by the grievance committee is bereft of any reasons, nor it has considered how the qualification and the experience which the petitioner possess during the service with the Defence is not equivalent to the eligibility criteria as was required in the advertisement. The grievance committee should have given the reasons for non consideration of the case of the petitioner. 7. In the light of the above I quash and set aside the order of the grievance committee dated 17.09.2007 and relegate the parties to the grievance committee. 8. The grievance committee shall decide the complaint filed by the petitioner after giving opportunity to all the parties and decide the same by giving reasons. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will appear before the 5 wp 7445.09 Committee on 22nd August, 2011 and thereafter the Committee shall dispose of the proceedings as early as possible. The Rule is made absolute in above terms, however, with no order as to costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11