1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 460/2009 (Ramesh Vitthalrao Tapre VERSUS Director, Higher Education, Maharashtra State & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.P. Lala, counsel for the appellant. Shri P.D. Kothari, A.G.P. for the R-1, 2 & 3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for a decree against the defendants i.e. The Director of Higher Education, the Joint Director of Higher Education, the State Government and the Principal of Jagdamba Vidyalaya for an amount of Rs.83,789/- towards the difference in salary, which, according to the plaintiff, was payable to him. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was promoted on the post of Senior Clerk by an order dated 12.08.1987 and the promotion of the plaintiff was approved by the Joint Director of Higher Education. The plaintiff worked as a Senior Clerk for a period of six months and was 2 paid the salary for the said period. Thereafter, he was informed by a communication dated 09.02.1988 that yet another Junior Clerk namely Shri Dakhane has approached the Court and since the matter was sub-judice, the promotion of the plaintiff may be withdrawn. The defendant no.4, the College, reverted the plaintiff by an order dated 17.02.1988. The plaintiff started working as a Junior Clerk. Thereafter, an approval for the promotion of the plaintiff was again granted and he was promoted on the post of Senior Clerk. The plaintiff accepted the said order under protest and on his reinstatement, approached the civil Court for the difference in salary. The Joint Director of Higher Education resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing the written statement. Inter alia, it is pleaded by the defendant no.2 that the civil Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff as the same was barred in view of the provisions of Section 62 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. According to the defendants, the grievance of the plaintiff could have been agitated before the University and College Tribunal. Both the Courts, on a proper appreciation of the facts and the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that 3 the plaintiff’s suit was liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Courts held that the suit was barred in view of the provisions of Section 62 of the Maharashtra Universities Act as by seeking the salary of Rs.83,789/-, the plaintiff was, in deed, challenging the order of his reversion dated 17.02.1988. The findings recorded by both the Courts are based on a proper appreciation of the facts and the material evidence on record and they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE