JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner has put forth prayer clauses “C” and “D” as under:-

“C) The impugned communication dated 11.10.2021 issued by Director, Examination & Evaluation Department & Circular dated 08-11.10.2021 to the extent of scoring the name of the petitioner for the English subject be quashed and set-aside and for that purpose necessary writ, orders may be issued.

D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, the impugned communication dated 11.10.2021 issued by Director, Examination and Evaluation Department and Circular dated 08-11.10.2021 to the extent of scoring the name of the petitioner for the English subject be stayed and kept in abeyance with further direction to the respondents, their officers or anybody acting on their behalf to allow the petitioner to discharge the duties and responsibilities of the petitioner as a Head of Department for English Department.”

3. After recording the submissions of the learned advocates for the respective sides, we have gone through the petition paper book, with their assistance. We have also perused the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner.

4. The petitioner is working as Professor in the department of English in the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as “the University”). Being a Professor in the department, she was designated as Head of the department of English, vide communication dated 14.3.2017. This order was to take effect from 1.4.2017. Since the designation of HOD is a tenure assignment of three years, the petitioner assumed the charge of HOD on 1.4.2017 and her tenure was to end on 31.3.2020.

5. The University received certain complaints against the petitioner and by an order dated 31.3.2018, she was dislodged as the HOD in the light of the constitution of the inquiry committee, consisting of advocate Shri P.S. Paranjape (retired District and Sessions Judge), as a Chairman, Advocate Smt. Archana Gondhalekar and advocate Mrs. Ansari, who were members of the said committee. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said action of the Vice Chancellor, who exercised powers under Section 106 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “2016 Act”), approached this court, by preferring writ petition No. 584 of 2018. The inquiry committee had not concluded it’s proceeding and had undertaken the task assigned to it. Vide the judgment dated 18.09.2020, delivered by this Court [Coram: Dipankar Datta, C.J. (as His Lordship then was) and S.V. Gangapurwala, J.], the petition was allowed after concluding that the powers under Section 106 of the 2016 Act, were not available to the Vice Chancellor to be utilized in the manner in which they were exercised as against the present petitioner. By allowing the petition, this Court issued the following directions:-

“[a] The order of the Vice Chancellor constituting the Enquiry Committee, the report of such committee and the order of the Vice Chancellor, which was communicated by the Registrar by the impugned letter dated March 31,2018, stand set aside.

[b] The aforesaid order would, however, not mean automatic re-designation of the petitioner as the Head of the Department of English, for, we find that Dr. Ambhore has been designated as the Head of the Department of English and his term of 3 years is scheduled to end on March 31, 2021; therefore, it would not be desirable to disturb the present arrangement particularly when Dr. Ambhore is not before us as a party.

[c] However, we make it clear that in the event the petitioner is otherwise qualified for being designated as the Head of Department once again, she shall be so designated on and from April 1, 2021, for the balance period of two years, which she could not serve as a result of the order of the Vice Chancellor asking her to hand over charge to Dr. Ambhore. Such reinstatement shall be s