1 W.P.No.967 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.967 OF 2010 Dr. Miss Vaishali d/o Sitaram Pradhan ..PETITIONER VERSUS Peoples Education Society, Mumbai, through its Chairman & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr M.M. Ambhore, Advocate for respondent no.1; Mr S.S. Thombre, Advocate for respondent no.2; Mr D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent no.3 CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 30th November, 2011 PER COURT : By the present writ petition directions are sought to respondent no.1 to hold inquiry by properly constituted Inquiry Committee and provide appropriate opportunity of hearing. The order of status quo was granted on 8.2.2010 till 15.2.2010. The same was continued by an order dated 15.2.2010, 6.4.2010, 4.5.2010, 8.6.2010 and 29.6.2010. The petition was directed to be listed for hearing on 29.11.2011. 2 W.P.No.967 of 2010 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected by University Selection Committee and was consequently appointed as Principal on 1.4.2008. The probation period was to come to an end on 31.3.2010. Respondent no.1 issued show cause notice on 27.1.2010 (Exh.E). The petitioner claims to have submitted the reply to the management. The petitioner's apprehension is that without following the procedure enunciated under the relevant provisions of law adverse orders would be passed against the petitioner. 3. Respondent no.1 society filed affidavit in reply of Member of the Governing Body Dr. Ramkrishna Abhiman Wavare through learned Counsel Shri M.M. Ambhore. The learned Counsel Shri H.M. Salve appears and submits that he is also authorised to make submissions on behalf of the management. During the course of hearing it transpired that both the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 society have adopted contradictory stand in respect of services of the petitioner. 3 W.P.No.967 of 2010 4. We are not addressing issues in respect of inter se disputes, if any, in the management of respondent no.1. We have not taken cognizance of the submission advanced in that regard, as an alternate statutory forum is available to the parties in such cases for redressal of their grievance. 5. The petitioner was continued in service after the interim relief was granted on 8.2.2010. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner has completed two years probation period during the pendency of this petition, it should be presumed that she has successfully completed the probation period to the satisfaction of the management. The Counsel has referred to the provisions of Statute 219-B of the University. We have perused the same. In the facts of the case, we observe that completion of period of two years during the pendency of this petition, on the basis of the interim relief granted by this Court, would not entitle the petitioner to claim that the petitioner has completed the probation period in accordance with the provisions of Statute 219-B. The management is entitled to take steps in this regard in respect of claim of completion of probation to the satisfaction of the management. We leave the said issue open 4 W.P.No.967 of 2010 for the management of respondent no.1 to consider and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on two reported judgments in the matter of Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta & ors., 1999 AIR SCW 605 and Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. & anr., 1999 AIR SCW 207. We have considered the same. 8. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) amj/wp967.10