Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
R.D. Dhanuka, S. G. Mehare, JJ.
Kisan Vidya Prasarak Sanstha Shirpur, Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule, through its President Shri Tushar S/o Vishwasrao Randhe and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.9662 of 2017 With Civil Application No. 12976 of 2021 In Writ Petition No. 9662 Of 2017 With Civil Application No. 8378 of 2020
Decided On : 23-03-2022
University Act - Recruitment of Staff - Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 - Sections 5(dd), 5(ww), 9(3), 61(3) - The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the impugned letter and order issued by the State of Maharashtra and the University, and to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to fill up the vacancies sanctioned by the Government. The court held that the petitioners failed to challenge the constitutional validity of the relevant sections of the University Act and the directions issued by the State Government and the University. The court also found that the State Government had the power to issue directions for the appointment of a selection committee for recruitment of staff members, and the University was bound to comply with such directions. The court emphasized the need to maintain transparency and avoid corruption and malpractices in the recruitment process. The court further noted that the petitioners did not challenge the vires of the provisions of the University Act or the directions issued, and therefore, no judicial interference was warranted.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash an impugned letter and order issued by the State of Maharashtra and the University, and to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to fill up the vacancies sanctioned by the Government. The petitioners claimed that the State Government had been reluctant to grant permission to fill up the vacancies, leading to the inability to recruit staff.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioners failed to challenge the constitutional validity of the relevant sections of the University Act and the directions issued by the State Government and the University. The court also found that the State Government had the power to issue directions for the appointment of a selection committee for recruitment of staff members, and the University was bound to comply with such directions. The court emphasized the need to maintain transparency and avoid corruption and malpractices in the recruitment process. The court further noted that the petitioners did not challenge the vires of the provisions of the University Act or the directions issued, and therefore, no judicial interference was warranted.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to quash the impugned letter and order and to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to fill up the vacancies sanctioned by the Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners failed to challenge the constitutional validity of the relevant sections of the University Act and the directions issued by the State Government and the University. The court also found that the State Government had the power to issue directions for the appointment of a selection committee for recruitment of staff members, and the University was bound to comply with such directions. The court emphasized the need to maintain transparency and avoid corruption and malpractices in the recruitment process. The court further noted that the petitioners did not challenge the vires of the provisions of the University Act or the directions issued, and therefore, no judicial interference was warranted.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioners failed to challenge the constitutional validity of the relevant sections of the University Act and the directions issued by the State Government and the University. The court also found that the State Government had the power to issue directions for the appointment of a selection committee for recruitment of staff members, and the University was bound to comply with such directions. The court emphasized the need to maintain transparency and avoid corruption and malpractices in the recruitment process. The court further noted that the petitioners did not challenge the vires of the provisions of the University Act or the directions issued, and therefore, no judicial interference was warranted.
JUDGMENT :
R. D. Dhanuka, J.
Rule. Mr. Talekar, learned Special Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 waives service. Mr. Anandsingh Bayas, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 waives service. Rule is returnable forthwith.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned letter dated 6th June, 2017 issued by the respondent No.2 and writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to fill up the vacancies sanctioned by the Government as per the provisions of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 (for short, “the said University Act”).
3. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 18th August, 2017 passed by the State of Maharashtra and also the consequential directions issued by the Vice Chancellor of respondent No.3 University, dated 30th August, 2018. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are as follows :-
4. The petitioner No.1 is a registered society and Trust which runs petitioner No.2 Ayurved College. Respondent No.3 to 6 are impleaded as petitioner Nos.3 to 6 subsequently. There are about 19 Ayurved Colleges in the State of Maharashtra. Petitioners claim to have been filed this Writ Petition in representative capacity.
5. On 4th March 2014, the State Government issued a Government Resolution and accepted that all the 19 Ayurved and Unani Colleges in the State of Maharashtra need 603 posts of Lecturers to be filled in as per the norms prescribed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine. It is the case of the petitioners that the State Government accordingly granted permission to fill up those vacancies in the colleges run by the petitioners. On 2nd June 2015, the State of Maharashtra issued another Government Resolution and permitted the petitioners to fill up 75% of the sanctioned vacancies. On 15th January 2016, the State of Maharashtra issued another Government Resolution thereby granting permission to fill up the sanctioned vacancies which was reduced to 50%. The petitioners thereafter submitted an advertisement for sanction with the Respondent No.3 University.
6. Respondent No.3 vide its letter dated 11th January 2016, permitted the petitioners to fill in the vacancies as per the roster. By a letter dated 18th April 2016, petitioner No.2 sought permission from the respondent No.2 to fill up six vacancies as mentioned in the said letter. The State of Maharashtra, however, did not grant permission to fill up the vacancies as requested by the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that the State of Maharashtra had always been reluctant in granting permission to fill up those vacancies. Respondent No.3 University extended the period of advertisement from time to time. According to the petitioners, because of the such approach on the part of respondent No.3 University and the State of Maharashtra, the petitioners are not in a position to fill up the vacancies.
7. On 24th July 2017, the petitioners filed this petition for various reliefs. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioners applied for amendment to the Writ Petition which was permitted by this Court by an Order dated 30th October 2018.
8. Mr. Barlinge, learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to various documents and some of the averments made in the reply filed by the State of Maharashtra as well as by respondent No.3 University. It is submitted that by the impugned communication, the State Government tried to encroach upon the rights of the petitioners to recruit the teaching staff in their Institutions. The said letter was issued by the Director of AYUSH.
9. Learned counsel invited our attention to the interim order dated 18th June 2018 passed by this Court in this Petition directing that the respondents shall not fill in the post of the petitioner’s institution and the instit
The State Government had the power to issue directions for the appointment of a selection committee for recruitment of staff members, and the University was bound to comply with such directions. The ....
The State Government is authorized to conduct inquiries into university appointments under the State Universities Act, revealing the importance of procedural propriety and independence from universit....
The State Government's liability for salary payments to college staff as per Section 60-E of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, and the inability of government orders to override statutory rules.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the constitution of the Selection Committee in compliance with the M.S. University Act, emphasizing the legislative mandate'....
Candidates participating in a recruitment process do not have a legal right to appointment if the selection process is found to be flawed and thus invalid.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct application of legal provisions, specifically Section 35 of the Jharkhand University Act, 2000 and Section 5 of the Jharkhand Staff Sel....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
