Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Gram Vikas Education Society, runs a grant-in-aid college called Rani Indirabai Bhonsale Mahavidyalaya at Kuhi, Nagpur. Respondent No. 5, Dr. Jaywant Moreshwar Jagtap, was originally appointed as Principal in Jupiter Sharirik Shikshan Mahavidyalaya on 15.07.2009. On 29.05.2010, Respondent No. 4 University granted approval to his appointment as Principal in Vidarbha Arts and Commerce College, Lakhani, Bhandara until his date of superannuation. The Government of Maharashtra issued a Government Resolution on 15.03.2011. The Petitioner challenged the communication dated 20.06.2018 issued by the Vice Chancellor of Respondent No. 4 University, which modified the tenure of the original appointment order dated 28.08.2013 in respect of Respondent No. 5, and the consequential order dated 10.08.2018 issued by Respondent No. 3, Joint Director of Higher Education, Nagpur Division. The Petitioner contended that the impugned communications were contrary to and in violation of the Government Resolution dated 15.03.2011. The Court, after hearing the parties, held that the University cannot unilaterally modify the tenure of appointment which was governed by the Government Resolution dated 15.03.2011. The impugned communication dated 20.06.2018 and the consequential order dated 10.08.2018 were quashed and set aside. The Court allowed the petition with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment of Principal - Tenure - Government Resolution dated 15.03.2011 - The Petitioner Society challenged the communication dated 20.06.2018 issued by the Vice Chancellor of the University modifying the tenure of appointment of Respondent No. 5 as Principal, and the consequential order dated 10.08.2018 issued by the Joint Director of Education. The Court held that the University cannot unilaterally modify the tenure of appointment which was governed by the Government Resolution dated 15.03.2011, and the impugned communications were quashed. (Paras 1-2)
B) University Grants Commission - Approval of Appointment - University cannot override Government Resolution - The Court held that the University's communication modifying the tenure was contrary to the Government Resolution dated 15.03.2011 and therefore invalid. The consequential order dated 10.08.2018 was also set aside. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the communication dated 20.06.2018 issued by the Vice Chancellor of Respondent No. 4 University modifying the tenure of appointment of Respondent No. 5 is valid and in accordance with law, and whether the consequential order dated 10.08.2018 issued by Respondent No. 3 is sustainable.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the communication dated 20.06.2018 issued by the Vice Chancellor of Respondent No. 4 University and the consequential order dated 10.08.2018 issued by Respondent No. 3. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Government Resolution prevails over University communication
- University cannot unilaterally modify appointment tenure
- Appointment of Principal governed by Government Resolution dated 15.03.2011
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (09) 148
WRIT PETITION NO. 5526 OF 2018
SUNIL B. SHUKRE, MILIND N. JADHAV
Shri M. G. Bhangde, Senior Counsel a/w. Shri V. V. Bhangde, and Ms. S. N. Tapdiya, Advocate for petitioner; Shri A. S. Agrawal, Advocate for respondent no. 1; Shri S. J. Kadu, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 and 3; Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for respondent no. 4; Shri J. T. Gilda, Senior Counsel a/w. Shri A. J. Gilda and Shri S. K. Hatwar, Advocate for respondent no. 5
Gram Vikas Education Society
University Grants Commission, State of Maharashtra, Joint Director of Education, Rashtasant Tukodoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Dr. Jaywant Moreshwar Jagtap
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition challenging communication modifying tenure of appointment of Principal and consequential order.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of communication dated 20.06.2018 issued by Vice Chancellor of Respondent No. 4 University and consequential order dated 10.08.2018 issued by Respondent No. 3.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner Society challenged the communication dated 20.06.2018 issued by the Vice Chancellor of Respondent No. 4 University modifying the tenure of appointment of Respondent No. 5 as being contrary to Government Resolution dated 15.03.2011.
Issues
Whether the communication dated 20.06.2018 issued by the Vice Chancellor of Respondent No. 4 University modifying the tenure of appointment of Respondent No. 5 is valid and in accordance with law?
Whether the consequential order dated 10.08.2018 issued by Respondent No. 3 is sustainable?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the impugned communication dated 20.06.2018 and consequential order dated 10.08.2018 are contrary to and in violation of Government Resolution dated 15.03.2011.
Respondents argued in support of the impugned communications.
Ratio Decidendi
The University cannot unilaterally modify the tenure of appointment of a Principal which is governed by the Government Resolution dated 15.03.2011. Any communication or order contrary to the Government Resolution is invalid and liable to be quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
By the present Petition, the Petitioner Society has challenged communication dated 20.06.2018 issued by the Vice Chancellor of Respondent no. 4 University, as being contrary and in violation of Government Resolution dated 15.03.2011 issued by Respondent no. 2 i.e. Department of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai, inter alia, modifying the tenure of original appointment order dated 28.08.2013 in respect of Respondent no. 5.
The Petitioner has also challenged the consequential order dated 10.08.2018 issued by Respondent no. 3 i.e. Joint Director, Higher Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur pursuant to above communication dated 20.06.2018.
Procedural History
The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 5526 of 2018 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the communication dated 20.06.2018 and consequential order dated 10.08.2018. The Court heard the parties and reserved judgment on 13.09.2019, pronouncing it on 23.09.2019.
