Case Note & Summary
By way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a physically disabled employee with 60% locomotor disability belonging to the Other Backward Class, challenged the order dated 07.02.2018 passed by respondent No.2 (Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department) denying his inclusion as a permanent aided employee in the aided division of respondent No.6 college. The petitioner had been appointed as Junior Clerk/Typist on 28.08.1999 and confirmed on 20.09.2001. After respondent No.6 college received grant-in-aid from 2012, it was divided into aided and unaided divisions. While other non-teaching employees were shown against government approved aided posts, the petitioner was not, despite his permanent status. The petitioner's representations to the college authorities were not answered, prompting him to approach the Grievance Committee constituted under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The Grievance Committee recommended grant of pay-scale as per the Sixth Pay Commission, provident fund benefit, and promotion to Senior Clerk. The Management Council of the University of Mumbai accepted these recommendations on 31.08.2012 and communicated the decision to respondent No.6, stating that if not agreeable, respondent No.6 should inform the University, failing which the decision would be deemed accepted. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 did not challenge this, so the decision attained finality. However, the petitioner's grievance remained unaddressed. He filed Writ Petition No.9459 of 2013, which was disposed of by the High Court on 13.11.2017 with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the matter after hearing the petitioner and obtaining the views of the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities appointed under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Following this, the petitioner submitted a representation on 04.12.2017. Respondent No.2, after hearing, passed the impugned order on 07.02.2018, holding that there were seven sanctioned aided Group C posts, no post was available for persons with disabilities, and no vacancy existed; hence the petitioner could not be accommodated. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking multiple reliefs, including setting aside the order, inclusion of his name as permanent aided employee, promotion to Senior Clerk, revised pay, provident fund, late attendance, professional tax exemption, and special conveyance allowance. In the reply affidavits, the State and respondent Nos.5 and 6 justified the denial, stating that no vacancy existed. However, the Commissioner's opinion suggested that a supernumerary post could be created if no regular post was available. The petitioner relied on government resolutions dated 04.03.2002 and 04.08.2011 regarding reservation and 100-point roster, and argued that the first roster point was earmarked for persons with disabilities. He also pointed to government resolutions dated 01.04.2010 and 16.07.2013 for assured career progression after twelve years. In the sur-rejoinder filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6, they admitted that there were actually eight Class III category aided posts, not seven as previously stated, and that the earlier statement was made inadvertently. This admission considerably narrowed the controversy. The court had not yet pronounced the final judgment in the available excerpt; however, the core legal issues involved the applicability of the 1995 Act, the finality of the Grievance Committee recommendations, and the availability of supernumerary posts. The final decision is not available in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disability Reservation - Entitlement to Aided Post - Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk/Typist in 1999 and confirmed in 2001, but after college received grant-in-aid in 2012, his post was not shown under aided division while other employees were. Respondent No.2 held that out of seven sanctioned Group C aided posts no vacancy existed and no post was reserved for persons with disabilities. The Court noted that respondent Nos.5 and 6 in sur-rejoinder admitted that there were actually eight Class III aided posts and the earlier statement of seven was erroneous. Held that the controversy narrowed and required reconsideration of petitioner's claim for inclusion in aided post. (Paras 4-16) B) Administrative Law - Grievance Committee Recommendations - Finality of Unchallenged Decisions - Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, Section 57 - Grievance Committee considered petitioner's grievance and recommended pay-scale as per Sixth Pay Commission, provident fund benefit and promotion to Senior Clerk. Management Council accepted these recommendations and communicated to respondent No.6 on 31.08.2012; since respondent Nos.5 and 6 did not assail the decision, it attained finality. Held that the recommendations ought to be implemented. (Paras 7-8) C) Constitution of India - Writ Jurisdiction - Multiple Reliefs - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petitioner claimed ten separate reliefs; ordinarily court would not entertain multiple reliefs, but since all arose from core grievance of inclusion in aided post and previous writ petition had been entertained with positive direction, the court accepted the writ petition. Held that multiple reliefs can be adjudicated together when stemming from same core issue. (Para 3) D) Service Law - Promotion and Career Progression - Assured Career Progression - Government Resolutions dated 01.04.2010 and 16.07.2013 - Petitioner contended that as per Maharashtra government resolutions, employees not promoted after twelve years are entitled to higher pay-scale. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 stated two aided Senior Clerk posts were filled and no vacancy existed. The court noted the conflicting claims. Held that the issue of promotion and stagnation needed examination in light of the government resolutions. (Paras 14-15) E) Persons with Disabilities - Reasonable Accommodation - Supernumerary Post - Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities opined that if no post is available, management could accommodate petitioner by creating supernumerary post from date aided division created. State affidavit referred to this opinion but argued no vacancy. The court considered the sur-rejoinder admission of eight posts. Held that supernumerary post mechanism may address lack of vacancy. (Paras 13-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a physically disabled employee with 60% locomotor disability, is entitled to be shown as a permanent aided employee (Junior Clerk) in the aided division of respondent No.6 college against reservation for persons with disabilities; whether order dated 07.02.2018 passed by respondent No.2 denying such inclusion is legal and valid; whether recommendations of the Grievance Committee under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 accepted by the Management Council are binding and should be implemented; whether petitioner is entitled to other consequential reliefs including promotion, revised pay-scale, provident fund, late attendance, professional tax exemption and special conveyance allowance.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in available excerpt; the text ends during the sur-rejoinder before the court's final operative order.
Law Points
- Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities
- Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act
- 1995 requires views of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities before decision
- Maharashtra Universities Act
- 1994 Section 57 provides Grievance Committee whose recommendations accepted by Management Council attain finality if unchallenged
- Government Resolutions provide 3% reservation and 100-point roster for persons with disabilities
- supernumerary post may be created to accommodate disabled employee if no vacancy exists
- multiple reliefs may be entertained under Article 226 if arising from same core grievance
