Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 1167
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
MANGESH S. PATIL, ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.
Nanasaheb Babasaheb Dharbale – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4978 of 2022
Decided on : 23-08-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pushkar S. Shendurnikar.
For the Respondent: Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, Mr. C.V. Dharurkar, Mr. K M. Suryawanshi, Mr. Atul M. Karad, Mr. S.B. Deshpande
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 - Section 121 - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Educational Institutions Act - Section 3, (4) - Refusing to take over management - Seeking benefit of 6th Pay Commission - Petitioners who are some of members of teaching and non-teaching staff of respondent No. 6 are challenging order passed by respondent No. 3 who is DTE refusing to take over management of respondent No. 6 – Even if management is to be blamed, one cannot overlook circumstances which practically makes it impossible for DTE to exercise powers under Section 3 of Educational Institutions Act - Para 20.
Finding of the Court: It seems to be entirely fault of management in not running college efficiently since it had failed to even satisfy orders of Court whereby it was directed to pay staff members scale according to 6th Pay Commission which admittedly have crossed to Rs. 6 to 7 Crores - It is also apparent from stand being taken by PCI in its affidavit in reply that management had even not bothered to appear before it for extension of approval since last four to five years - Therefore, even if management is to be blamed, one cannot overlook circumstances discussed above which practically makes it impossible for DTE to exercise powers under Section 3 of Educational Institutions Act – Court cannot sit in appeal and can only ascertain if there is any gross error and illegality in process and manner in which decision has been taken - When DTE has formed an opinion and to his subjective satisfaction circumstances discussed herein above are not sufficient to invoke that power court cannot substitute view by reversing that decision.
Result: Writ Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. At the joint request of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are some of the members of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the respondent No. 6-College of Pharmacy being run by the respondent No. 5-management (hereinafter management) are challenging the order passed by the respondent No. 3 who is the Director of Technical Education (hereinafter DTE) refusing to take over the management of the respondent No. 6-college under the provisions of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act, 1976 ( hereinafter Educational Institutions Act), dated 10.02.2022.
3. Before we proceed to examine the sustainability and legality of the order under challenge it would be appropriate to narrate the history.
(a) The management is a Trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 and Societies Registration Act, 1860 which has been running the respondent No. 6- College of Pharmacy for last around two and half decades. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and few others filed Writ Petition No. 5150/2013 in this Court seeking benefit of the 6th Pay Commission. The writ petition was allowed by this Court on 15.01.2018. The management challenged that order before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 10537/2018. It was dismissed on 09.05.2018. However, a liberty was granted to the management to seek review of the order in Writ Petition No. 5150/2013. Accordingly Review Application (Stamp) No. 28198/2018 was filed but it was withdrawn on 06.02.2020. Those petitioners are now claiming arrears which according to them are Rs. 4,83,22,894.18.
(b) Like the above petitioners, the petitioner Nos. 10 to 19 filed Writ Petition No. 11259/2017 and petitioner Nos. 5 to 7 and 20 and 21 filed Writ Petition No. 11343/2019, thereby claiming benefit of the 6th Pay Commission. Both these petitions were allowed on 28.08.2019 and 30.01.2020 respectively and the decisions reached finality since the management did not challenge those orders. According to those petitioners the arrears of the pay to which they are entitled to are 2,58,41,722/- and Rs. 1,17,69,756/- respectively. The management failed to pay these arrears.
(c) On 14.09.2018, the respondent No. 2-All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter AICTE) withdrew its approval granted to the respondent No. 6-College on account of persistent default committed by the respondent No. 5-college to remove the deficiencies pointed out by the Expert Visiting Committee which had concluded that the managing society-institute was not interested in improving the conditions that were prevalent. The management did not challenge this order.
(d) Some of the staff members preferred Writ Petition No. 12095/2018 and even some students filed Writ Petition No. 11064/2018 against the AICTE and the management and at their instance the AICTE was pleased to withdraw the order whereby it had revoked approval. The standing appellate committee of the AICTE found that the management had not bothered to respond to it and recommended on 15.05.2019 to place the college under ‘No Admission’ category for the academic year 2019-2020.
(e) Finding that the management was apparently not interested in running the college, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 13358/2019 and prayed for transfer of the management or to direct the Director of the DTE to appoint an administrator over the management and the college and for direction to the authorities to take steps for closure of the college under Section 121 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 by paying retrenchment compensation of Rs. 2 Crores to the members of the teaching staff and Rs. 1 Crore each to the non-teaching staff and to pay regular salary.
(f) Since some of the petitioners were relieved by the management during pendency of that writ petition,
