Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gajanan Laxminarayan Pedhiwal, was appointed as a lecturer in a college at Washim on 30 November 1992. In 1995, he was declared surplus and absorbed in respondent no.5 college at Akola. Respondent no.6 was appointed as a lecturer in the same college in December 1997. In 2008, respondent no.6 filed a complaint before the Grievance Committee of Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University claiming seniority over the petitioner and eligibility for appointment as head of department. The Grievance Committee initially decided against the petitioner without hearing him. The petitioner challenged that decision in a writ petition, which was allowed by the High Court, and the matter was remitted to the Grievance Committee for fresh decision after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner appeared and filed a written statement, pleading that the circulars dated 19.7.1997 and 27.5.1997 relied upon by respondent no.6 were stayed by the Government, and that according to the Statutes and Ordinances, seniority should be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment in 1992. He also contended that the complaint was filed after a delay of 10 years. The Grievance Committee, after hearing, submitted a report dated 9.7.2012 holding respondent no.6 as senior. The Vice-Chancellor accepted the report under Section 14(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, and the petitioner was informed by communication dated 12.7.2012. The petitioner impugned the report and the communication. The High Court found that the Grievance Committee had not considered the petitioner's specific plea regarding the stay of circulars and the issue of delay. The report and the communication were quashed, and the matter was remanded to the Grievance Committee for a fresh decision in accordance with law, after considering all relevant material and giving due opportunity to the parties.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Natural Justice - Grievance Committee - The Grievance Committee failed to consider the petitioner's specific plea that the circulars relied upon by the respondent were stayed by the Government, and also failed to address the issue of delay of 10 years in filing the complaint. The report and the Vice-Chancellor's acceptance under Section 14(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 were quashed for non-application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 1-5) B) Service Law - Seniority - Absorption - Date of Initial Appointment - The petitioner, appointed in 1992 and later absorbed in 1995, claimed seniority from 1992. The respondent, appointed in 1997, claimed seniority based on circulars. The court held that the Committee must consider the relevant statutes and ordinances and the effect of the stay on the circulars. (Paras 2-4) C) Service Law - Delay and Laches - Seniority Dispute - The respondent filed a complaint in 2008 regarding seniority, whereas the petitioner had been working since 1992. The Grievance Committee did not consider the unexplained delay of 10 years, which was a relevant factor. The court set aside the report and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Grievance Committee's report and the Vice-Chancellor's acceptance thereof are sustainable when the Committee failed to consider the petitioner's submissions regarding the stay of circulars and the delay in filing the complaint, and whether the decision suffers from non-application of mind.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the report of the Grievance Committee dated 9.7.2012 and the communication dated 12.7.2012, and remanded the matter to the Grievance Committee for a fresh decision in accordance with law, after considering all relevant material and giving due opportunity to the parties.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- right to be heard
- consideration of relevant material
- seniority determination
- delay and laches
- government circulars
- Maharashtra Universities Act
- 1994 Section 14(7)
