Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved a private medical college trust and its faculty over the headship of the Department of Medicine. Dr. Manohar Pisolkar, the respondent, had been acting as Head of Department (HoD) without a formal appointment order. In 1997, the management appointed Dr. Manik Bharaswadkar as HoD on his very first day of joining as Professor. Dr. Pisolkar challenged this before the University and College Tribunal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, arguing that his removal from HoD constituted reduction in rank. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and restored him to the position. The management filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the Tribunal’s order. No interim relief was granted earlier, and the matter acquired an academic character as both teachers had retired about 16 years before the hearing. The core legal issue was whether the assignment of HoD is a substantive 'post' and whether its withdrawal amounts to reduction in rank under Section 59. The management contended that HoD is an administrative charge, not a post, and thus its removal is not appealable. The respondent maintained that it was a reduction in rank. The High Court examined precedents: a Calcutta High Court decision holding that taking away charge does not reduce rank; the Supreme Court’s ruling in K. Gopaul v. Union of India that designation as Head of Department does not determine rank and transfer without lower pay is not reduction; and the Madras High Court’s decision in Dr. Alagappan v. Annamalai University that HoD is not a post under the definition of teachers. Relying on these, the Court concluded that the Tribunal had misapplied Section 59. It held that the HoD assignment is not a substantive appointment but an administrative arrangement, and its removal does not amount to reduction in rank. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the Tribunal’s judgment dated 19.06.1997 was set aside, and the management’s action in appointing a new HoD was upheld. The judgment settled the legal position that change of departmental headship does not attract the protective provisions of Section 59.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reduction in Rank - Head of Department not a Substantive Post - Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, Section 59 - The removal of an employee from the position of Head of Department does not amount to reduction in rank as the assignment is an administrative charge and not a substantive post. The Tribunal erred in treating it as a post and assuming jurisdiction under Section 59. Held that merely taking away such charge does not constitute reduction in rank, relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents. (Paras 4, 6, 8-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the assignment of a Head of the Department in a University or College is a 'post' and whether taking away such charge amounts to reduction in rank under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994?
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed; judgment of the University and College Tribunal dated 19.06.1997 is quashed and set aside. The change of Head of Department is upheld as not amounting to reduction in rank.
Law Points
- Head of Department is not a substantive post
- mere administrative charge
- removal does not amount to reduction in rank
- assignment of HoD depends on management’s discretion
- Section 59 appeal limited to dismissal/removal/reduction in rank
