Bombay High Court Allows Petition Challenging Government's Jurisdiction to Question Appointment of College Registrar After Five Years. State Education Department's Action Held Unwarranted as Appointment Was Made After Due Process and Approved by Predecessors.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 158
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Petitioner, Raghuvir Atmaram Sawant, was appointed as Registrar of Shri Chinai College of Commerce and Economics on 8th August, 1985, after an advertisement and selection process. Five years later, Respondent No.3, the Administrative Officer of Higher Education Grants, questioned the validity of his appointment based on complaints from third parties. The Petitioner sought a declaration that the State Education Department had no jurisdiction to question his appointment, and also sought directions for fixation of his pay in the scale of Rs.2000-3500 and payment of arrears with interest. The court found that the appointment was made following due process and that the challenge after five years was improper. The court allowed the petition, declaring that Respondent Nos.1 to 3 had no jurisdiction to question the appointment, and directed them to fix the Petitioner's pay in the appropriate scale and provide grants to the college.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Appointment - Jurisdiction of State Education Department - The State Education Department has no jurisdiction to question the appointment of a Registrar in an aided college after a lapse of five years, especially when the appointment was made following due process and approved by predecessors. The court held that the action of Respondent No.3 in questioning the appointment was unwarranted and uncalled for as a matter of propriety, on principal and on merits. (Paras 3-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether Respondent Nos.1 to 3 (State Education Department) have jurisdiction to question the appointment of the Petitioner as Registrar of Respondent No.4 College made on 8th August, 1985, after a lapse of five years.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the petition, declaring that Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have no jurisdiction to question the appointment of the Petitioner as Registrar of Respondent No.4 College made on 8th August, 1985. The court directed Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to fix the Petitioner's pay in the scale of Rs.2000-3500 from the relevant date and to pay interest on arrears at 12% p.a. from due date till payment, and to provide necessary grants to Respondent No.4 college.

Law Points

  • Jurisdiction of State Education Department to question appointment of Registrar in aided college
  • Limitation for challenging appointments
  • Propriety of administrative action
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (01) 145

WRIT PETITION NO.205 OF 1993

2005-01-28

A.P. Shah, S.J. Vazifdar

Mr.Ramesh Rammurthy for the Petitioner, Mr.R.N. Nerlekar for Intervenor, Mr.J.R. Yadav i/b Mr.K.S. Bapat for the Respondents

Raghuvir Atmaram Sawant

The State of Maharashtra, Director of High Education, Administrative Officer Higher Education Grants, Principal Shri Chinai College of Commerce and Economics, Laxmi Education Society

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of State Education Department to question appointment of Registrar in an aided college.

Remedy Sought

Declaration that Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have no jurisdiction to question Petitioner's appointment as Registrar; declaration that Petitioner is entitled to pay fixation in scale Rs.2000-3500; writ of mandamus directing pay fixation and payment of arrears with interest; direction to provide grants to college.

Filing Reason

Respondent No.3 questioned the Petitioner's appointment as Registrar five years after his appointment, contrary to orders of predecessors.

Issues

Whether Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have jurisdiction to question the appointment of the Petitioner as Registrar after five years.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the appointment was made after due process and that the challenge after five years was unwarranted. Respondents argued that the appointment was not valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The State Education Department cannot question an appointment made after due process and approved by predecessors after a lapse of five years; such action is unwarranted on grounds of propriety and merits.

Judgment Excerpts

We have come to the conclusion that the action of Respondent No.3 in doing so was unwarranted and uncalled for as a matter of propriety, on principal and on merits. There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner was fully qualified to be considered for the said post.

Procedural History

The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.205 of 1993 in the Bombay High Court seeking declarations and directions regarding his appointment and pay fixation. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 28th January, 2005.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petition Challenging Government's Jurisdiction to Question Appointment of College Registrar After Five Years. State Education Department's Action Held Unwarranted as Appointment Was Made After Due Process and Approved by Pred...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court "Supreme Court Upholds Demolition of Unauthorized Construction in Meerut" "A Landmark Judgment Emphasizing the Rule of Law in Urban Planning"