Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 196
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sunil B. Shukre, Amit Borkar, JJ.
Divya T.A. - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (L) No. 31705 of 2021
Decided On : 24-02-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bernardo Reis, i/b Priyanka Pandit
For the Respondent: Mr. Kedar Dighe, AGP, Mr. Susheel Mahadeshwar, i/b Ranjana Todankar, Ms. Kavita Anchan, with Arsh Misra, i/b M.V. Kini
Point of Law : Power of judicial review of administrative orders by Courts while exercising powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India is well settled. Unless decision is arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious, Court will not interfere with administrative decisions.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Full-time PhD programme - Government Resolution - Deputation of - Communication - Challenged - Power of judicial review - Direct Respondent No. 2 to recall its decision refusing to grant consent for deputation of Petitioner with Respondent No. 3 and relieve Petitioner to pursue full-time PhD programme under Quality Improvement Programme (“QIP”) as per Government Resolutions issued by Respondent No. 1 - Respondent No. 1 revised guidelines about permitting Teachers to pursue PhD under QIP, which did not provide for replacement in place of a Teacher pursuing a PhD. Respondent No. 2, therefore, by communication withdrawn No Objection granted in favour of Petitioner for pursuing PhD.
Finding of the court :
Respondent No. 2 has withdrawn No Objection granted to the Petitioner. The Petitioner in absence of any legal right cannot force Respondent No. 2 to give consent in his favour. Moreover, Respondent No. 2 has already explained reasons for recalling No-Objection Certificate stating that under the old policy, Respondent No. 2 was entitled to have the services of a replacement Teacher. Under new policy, Respondent No. 2 does not have benefit of replacement Teacher. Petitioner being only Teacher in subject of Physics for three streams, i.e. Civil, Mechanical and Engineering, the rights of students would be affected, if Petitioner is relieved of his post. Therefore, court satisfied that Respondent No. 2 was justified in recalling the consent - Petitioner is unable to show any legal right in his favour that entitles him for any relief. Moreover, it is an established principle that this Court will not interfere with functioning of educational institutions in exercise of power of judicial review.
Result : Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Amit Borkar, J.
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a Associate Professor working with Respondent No. 2 – Sardar Patel College of Engineering (“College”) seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent No.2 to recall its decision refusing to grant consent for deputation of the Petitioner with Respondent No. 3 and relieve the Petitioner to pursue full-time PhD programme under Quality Improvement Programme (“QIP”) as per Government Resolutions dated 20th November 1996 and 28th October 1998 issued by Respondent No. 1.
2. The Petitioner is an Associate Professor in Physics at the Autonomous College administered by Respondent No. 2, affiliated to the University of Mumbai. In pursuance of the Quality Improvement Programme floated by Respondent No. 1 by Government Resolution dated 20th November 1996, the Petitioner on 18th July 2019 applied to Respondent No. 2 for No-Objection to allow the Petitioner to apply for PhD programme under QIP for the year 2020. Respondent No. 2 on 18th July 2019 granted No-Objection to Petitioner.
3. By Government Resolution dated 24th February 2021, Respondent No. 1 revised guidelines about permitting Teachers to pursue PhD under QIP, which did not provide for the replacement in place of a Teacher pursuing a PhD. Respondent No. 2, therefore, by communication dated 30th December 2021, withdrawn No Objection granted in favour of the Petitioner for pursuing PhD. Thus, the Petitioner has challenged communication dated 30th December 2021 by way of the present petition.
4. Respondent No. 2, in pursuance of notice issued by this Court, filed its affidavit stating that initial No Objection granted on 24th October 2019 was based on Government Resolution dated 20th November 1996, which permitted the employer to engage services of another Teacher in place of the Teacher pursuing PhD. But Respondent No. 1 introduced change in policy by the Government Resolution dated 24th February 2021,with the result, the Respondent No. 2 would no longer be permitted to engage services of replacement Teacher in place of Teacher like Petitioner. It is stated that Petitioner is the only Teacher teaching Engineering Physics to 180 students of three programmes: Civil, Mechanical and Engineering of First-Year Engineering and, therefore, the students of First Year will suffer if the Petitioner is relieved. It is also stated that two Teachers of Respondent No. 2 are pursuing their PhD course similar to the Petitioner while carrying out their duties in Respondent No. 2 College. Respondent No. 2 has given details of the names of both the Teachers. It is also stated that Petitioner can pursue PhD course while continuing to be in employment of Respondent No. 2 without availing study leave.
5. Respondent No. 2 has filed an additional reply affidavit stating that for achieving National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) and National Board of Accreditation (NBA), it is mandatory to have at least one Professor and one Associate Professor in every department. Therefore, if the Petitioner is relieved, it will affect their chances of getting accreditation.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner placing reliance on principle of promissory estoppel submitted that Respondent No. 2 could not have recalled its decision, once having permitted the Petitioner to pursue PhD programme with Respondent No. 3. He submitted that there is a legitimate expectation from the Respondents to fulfill their promise once made. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner relied upon judgments of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, (1979) 2 SCC 409, and Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Others. AIR 2002 SC 382,
7. Per contra, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that there is no legal right available with the Petitioner without employer's consent to seek study leave. It is submitted th
