1 WP 1761 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1761 of 2009 Madha Taluka Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Anr. ..... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.A.M.Joshi, for the petitioners. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr.C.G.Gavnekar, for respondent No.5. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 13TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. The respondent No.5 teacher was appointed on clock-hour basis and was asked to take six periods in a week and was paid only fixed remuneration on the basis of the said clock-hour appointment. At the time when there was increase of the workload, he requested the Management to give him additional workload, which was denied to him without any justification. The Management refused to give him proper workload only with a view to exploit him by giving the employment on clock-hour basis and by giving limited work of six periods. The respondent No.5 had initially approached this Court when he was not given proper workload in the year 2003. At that time, the management 2 WP 1761 of 2009 took an objection that appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to go to the Grievance Committee. It was pointed out that there was alternate remedy available to the respondent No.5 and accordingly, the respondent No.5 went to the Grievance Committee constituted by the University. The Grievance Committee has found that there was no justification on the part of the management in not giving proper workload to the respondent No.5, even though the same was available with the management. It is required to be noted that no specific order for termination was passed by the management and therefore, the Grievance Committee had rightly exercised its jurisdiction as it was not a case of termination, but a case where a teacher was not given proper work load though available. The Grievance Committee has accordingly, passed an order asking the Management to give appropriate workload to the respondent No.5 and also issued directions that as and when regular vacancy arises, the respondent No.5 may be appointed on the said post. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Grievance Committee could not have given such directions of the nature given in the impugned order. According to him, regular vacancy is required to be filled in by way of a selection process. In this behalf, it is required to be noted that the respondent No.5 was exploited by the management, as he was continued on clock-hour basis by giving him fixed 3 WP 1761 of 2009 salary for more than nine years. When the respondent No.5 requested for additional workload, even the work which was given to him, was stopped. That is how the petitioner went to the Grievance Committee. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not qualified for the said post. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to point out that at the time when the respondent No.5 was appointed, he was possessing the requisite qualification. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.5 was appointed through the selection process undertaken by the Local Selection Committee, where a representative of the Management was there. Once the Management having selected the respondent No.5 after undertaking the process of selection, and given him work which was available at the relevant time, now cannot say that it would like to introduce somebody else for the same post, as the respondent No.5 was exploited by the management without giving him proper work load which was available. In our view, this is not a case in which this Court would like to interfere in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the facts and circumstances adverted to above. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has rightly pointed out that the Management which is an aided institution, is taking advantage of the aid given by the Government and making recruitment in their own style. He further submitted that it is the high time that the State Government should 4 WP 1761 of 2009 consider this aspect and if the Management is not acting in accordance with the provisions of law, the State should withhold the grant of the management. 3. In the instant case, this being a granted institution, the salary of the respondent No.5 is not required to be withheld in any manner. It is surprising as to why the management is raising this dispute against the respondent No.5, perhaps with a view to accommodate somebody else on this post. In our view, the stand taken by the management is required to be deprecated, as it has exploited the respondent No.5 and now wants to appoint somebody else for the reasons best known to it. We accordingly, direct the management to give respondent No.5 appropriate workload as suggested by the Grievance Committee and to give him appropriate work within a period of one week from today. The petitioner shall communicate this order to the respondent No.5 forthwith. In our view, the petition is thoroughly misconceived and we do not find any substance in the petition. 4. The petition is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid by the Management to the respondent No.5 within a period of one week today. Notice discharged. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )