Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vaidya Balram Kakpure, a Lecturer at Shree Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Nagpur, filed a writ petition in 2008 challenging the selection and appointment of respondent no.7, Vaidya Govindprasad Upadhyaya, as Reader in the subject of Arogya Vidnyan and Vikruti Vidnyan (Rog Nidan) with effect from 1.7.1990, and consequently his promotion to Professor in the same department. The petitioner had applied for the post of Professor in 2007 but was not selected, while respondent no.7 was appointed. The petitioner then challenged the initial appointment of respondent no.7 as Reader in 1990, alleging that respondent no.7 did not possess the requisite three years of teaching experience in Rog Nidan, as he specialized in Kaya Chikitsa. The court noted that the appointment of respondent no.7 as Reader had been challenged earlier by one Ganesh Khandelwal in Writ Petition No. 2824/1990, but that petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The college and the then Principal had filed affidavits asserting that respondent no.7 had the required experience and a certificate dated 5.11.1990 was issued. The court found that the petitioner had not challenged the appointment for 18 years and had acquiesced to it. The court held that the challenge was barred by delay and laches, and the certificate of experience was valid. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Delay and Laches - Challenge to Appointment - Limitation - Petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent no.7 as Reader in 1990 by filing a writ petition in 2008 - The court held that the challenge was barred by delay and laches as the petitioner had acquiesced to the appointment for 18 years - Held that a writ petition challenging an appointment after such a long delay is not maintainable (Paras 5-7).
B) Service Law - Teaching Experience - Qualification for Reader - The respondent no.7 had a certificate from the Principal showing 3 years teaching experience in Rog Nidan, which was accepted by the Selection Committee - The court found no reason to disbelieve the certificate and held that the appointment was valid - Held that the challenge to the certificate was not sustainable (Paras 3-4, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the challenge to the appointment of respondent no.7 as Reader in 1990 is maintainable in a writ petition filed in 2008, and whether the appointment was illegal due to lack of requisite teaching experience.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Delay and laches
- Limitation for challenging appointment
- Acquiescence
- Estoppel by conduct
- Teaching experience requirement for Reader in Ayurveda
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (03) 186
Writ Petition No. 4844 of 2008
S.A. Bobde, Smt. Vasanti A. Naik
Shri S.S. Sharma for petitioner, Shri J.B. Jaiswal for respondent no.1, Shri N.W. Sambre for respondent no.2 & 3, Shri V.R. Thakur for respondent no.4 & 5, Mrs. Usha Tanna for respondent no.6, Shri K.H. Deshpande and Shri M.D. Lakhe for respondent no.7
Vaidya Balram s/o Rambhau Kakpure
The Maharashtra University of Health Sciences through its Registrar, The Director of Ayurved Maharashtra State, The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Bharitya Vaidyak Samanvaya Samiti through its Secretary, The Principal Shree Ayurved Maha Vidyalaya, The Central Council of Indian Medicine through its Secretary, Vaidya Govindprasad s/o Madhavprasad Upadhyaya
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the selection and appointment of respondent no.7 as Reader and Professor in an Ayurveda college.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that the selection and appointment of respondent no.7 as Reader w.e.f. 1.7.1990 and as Professor is illegal.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was not selected for the post of Professor in 2007 and challenged the initial appointment of respondent no.7 as Reader in 1990.
Previous Decisions
Writ Petition No. 2824/1990 filed by Ganesh Khandelwal challenging the same appointment was dismissed as withdrawn.
Issues
Whether the challenge to the appointment of respondent no.7 as Reader in 1990 is maintainable in a writ petition filed in 2008?
Whether the appointment of respondent no.7 as Reader was illegal due to lack of requisite teaching experience?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that respondent no.7 did not have the requisite 3 years teaching experience in Rog Nidan as he specialized in Kaya Chikitsa, and the certificate of experience was false.
Respondents argued that the challenge was barred by delay and laches, and the certificate of experience was valid and accepted by the Selection Committee.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition challenging an appointment made 18 years ago is barred by delay and laches, and the petitioner who acquiesced to the appointment cannot challenge it belatedly. The certificate of teaching experience issued by the Principal is valid and cannot be doubted without evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The main prayer of the petitioner is for a declaration that the selection and appointment of respondent no.7 on the post of Reader w.e.f. 1.7.1990 in the subject of Arogya Vidnyan and Vikruti Vidnyan [Rog Nidan] is illegal and consequently his selection to the post of Professor in the Department of Rog Nidan in respondent no.5 college is also illegal.
It is not in dispute that the respondent no.7 was appointed on the post of Reader in the Department of Rog Nidan in 1990.
The appointment of the respondent no.7 as a Reader was challenged by one Ganesh Khandelwal by filing writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 2824/1990.
The petitioner has not challenged the appointment of respondent no.7 for a period of 18 years and has acquiesced to the appointment of respondent no.7.
The challenge to the appointment of respondent no.7 as Reader in the year 1990 is barred by delay and laches.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4844 of 2008 in the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the appointment of respondent no.7 as Reader in 1990 and as Professor in 2007. The petition was heard and closed for judgment on 25.2.2010, and judgment was pronounced on 11.3.2010.
