Case Note & Summary
These writ petitions were filed by individual employees working in colleges affiliated to various universities under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. The employees had approached the Grievances Committees of their respective universities under Section 79 of the Act and obtained favourable orders. However, they faced a common problem: after a favourable decision, the college managements either outright refused to implement the Grievance Committee's directions or informed the employees that they had filed writ petitions before the learned Single Judge and the matter was pending. Whenever the employees sought implementation by representations or applications, the management responded that the order was sub judice in a writ petition before the High Court. As a result, the employees claimed they were rendered remediless and had to run from pillar to post, unable to enjoy the benefits of the Grievance Committee orders. The Bombay High Court, by a Division Bench, heard the matters together. It noted the strenuous submissions. The Court observed that the common grievance required issuance of guidelines. It referred to Uniform Statute No.1 of 2019, titled 'Maharashtra Public Universities (Penalties to be imposed upon Erring Affiliated Colleges/Recognized Institutions) Uniform Statutes 2018', brought into effect by notification dated 1 January 2019 by the Higher and Technical Education Department. The Court reproduced in detail clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the statute. Clause 2 lists violations, including neglect to implement decisions of Grievance Redressal Cells. Clause 3 prescribes penalties such as warning, fine from ten thousand to ten lakh rupees, prohibition of unauthorized divisions, suspension of affiliation, and other punitive action. Clause 4 lays down procedure for imposition of penalties, including notice, explanation, inquiry committee, show cause, and daily fines for non-compliance. Clause 5 clarifies that imposition of penalty does not regularise the irregularity. The Court noted that an order of the Grievances Committee, which exercises quasi-judicial functions, can be challenged by the management before the learned Single Judge under Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. If the order is against the employee, the employee can approach the College and University Tribunal under Section 81 of the Act. The Court observed that it is beyond debate that such remedies exist. The available text ends as the Court was addressing the consequence of the University not obeying the order of the Grievances Committee in the absence of a challenge before the Single Judge. The Court proceeded to issue guidelines to prevent employees from being rendered remediless due to non-implementation of Grievance Committee orders, relying on the penalties statute. However, the specific operative directions are not included in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Grievance Redressal - Binding Nature of Orders Under Section 79 - Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, Section 79 - Employees of affiliated colleges obtained favourable orders from Grievances Committees but colleges either refused implementation or claimed pendency of writ petitions, rendering the employees remediless. The Court recognized this common grievance and proceeded to issue guidelines to ensure implementation. Held that the practice of non-compliance cannot be countenanced (Paras 1-3, 5). B) Education Law - Penalties on Erring Affiliated Colleges - Violations and Penalties - Maharashtra Public Universities (Penalties to be imposed upon Erring Affiliated Colleges/Recognized Institutions) Uniform Statutes 2018, Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 - The Uniform Statute No.1 of 2019 prescribes disciplinary action for violations including neglect to implement Grievance Redressal Cell decisions; penalties include warning, fine up to rupees ten lakh, suspension of affiliation, and daily fines for non-compliance. The Court reproduced these provisions and deemed it appropriate to issue guidelines in light of them. Held that such statutory framework applies to erring colleges (Para 5). C) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review / Alternate Remedy - Challenge to Grievance Committee Orders - Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, Chapter XVII Rule 18; Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, Section 81 - An order of the Grievances Committee can be assailed by management before the learned Single Judge under Rule 18; an employee aggrieved by the order can approach the College and University Tribunal under Section 81. The Court noted these remedies, indicating that the availability of challenge does not justify non-implementation by colleges (Paras 6-7). D) Education Law - Implementation of Grievance Committee Orders - Effect of Pendency of Writ Petitions - Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, Section 79 - Colleges cannot use the mere filing of writ petitions as a shield to deny employees the benefits of Grievance Committee orders; the Court addressed the need for guidelines to prevent this. Held that employees should not be rendered remediless by such tactics (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether employees of affiliated colleges can be rendered remediless when colleges refuse to implement favourable orders of Grievances Committees under Section 79 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, or claim pendency of writ petitions; and what guidelines or penalties apply to ensure implementation of such orders.
Final Decision
The Court deemed it appropriate to issue guidelines in light of Uniform Statute No.1 of 2019. It observed that Grievance Committee orders can be challenged by management before the Single Judge under Rule 18 Chapter XVII of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, and employees can approach College and University Tribunal under Section 81. The available text ends before the final operative directions.
Law Points
- Orders of Grievances Committees under Section 79 of Maharashtra Public Universities Act
- 2016 must be implemented by affiliated colleges
- refusal or mere pendency of writ petition does not justify non-compliance
- Uniform Statute No.1 of 2019 prescribes penalties for erring affiliated colleges including failure to implement Grievance Redressal Cell decisions
- management can challenge Grievance Committee order before Single Judge under Rule 18 Chapter XVII of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules
- 1960
- employee can approach College and University Tribunal under Section 81 of the Act
