Back
2024 Supreme(Bom) 757
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
ANIL L. PANSARE, J.
Guru Nanak Institute of Engineering and Technology – Appellant
Versus
Grievance Committee, Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5191 of 2023, Writ Petition No. 5192 of 2023
Decided on : 31-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri A.K. Tripathi, Advocate a/w Ms Ayushi H. Dangre, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri D.R. Bhoyar, Advocate a/w Shri R.R. Dhawad, Advocate, Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for respondents No.3
IMPORTANT POINT
The Grievance Committee's authority is contingent upon valid, approved directions; lapsed directions negate its jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Grievance Committee - Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 - Sections 12(8), 79 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding the Grievance Committee's authority and the necessity for statutory approval of directions, concluding that the committee acted beyond its jurisdiction due to lapsed directions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged interim orders from the Grievance Committee directing the release of salaries to suspended employees, arguing the committee lost jurisdiction as the directions under which it acted had lapsed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Grievance Committee acted without jurisdiction as the directions issued by the Vice Chancellor were never approved and had lapsed, rendering the committee's orders unsustainable.
Issues: Whether the Grievance Committee had jurisdiction to issue orders based on lapsed directions from the Vice Chancellor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without statutory approval, the directions issued by the Vice Chancellor could not empower the Grievance Committee, leading to the invalidation of the committee's orders.
Result: The court quashed the Grievance Committee's orders and directed it to decide the grievances expeditiously.
JUDGMENT :
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.
3. The petitioner-institution is aggrieved by two interim orders, both dated 06/05/2023, passed by the Grievance Committee, Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj, Nagpur University, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the “Grievance Committee”) in favour of respondents No.3 in the both petitions in Grievance Petition Nos. 10/2022 and 11/2022 in favour of respondents No.3 in the both petitions.
4. The Grievance Committee has directed the petitioner-institution to release full salary of respondents No.3, from the date on which the period of six months is completed from the date of the suspension of the respondents No.3.
5. As stated earlier, these orders have been passed on 06/05/2023. The respondents No.3 in respective petitions lodged complaint on 16/03/2022 before the Grievance Committee, challenging the orders of suspension passed by the Society which runs the petitioner-institution. The suspension orders were passed on 11/03/2022 and 10/03/2022.
6. The Counsel for petitioner contends that on the date when the Grievance Committee has passed impugned orders, it had already lost jurisdiction.
7. On this point, I have heard both sides at length.
Section 79 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2016”) provides for constitution of Grievance Committee to deal with all types of grievances except the grievances against the State Government including its officials, teachers and other employees of the university, affiliated and autonomous colleges and recognized institutions, other than those managed and maintained by the State Government, Central Government or a local authority; which are not within the jurisdiction of the University and College Tribunal.
8. Since Section 79 of the Act of 2016 did not provide for procedure to be adopted by the Grievance Committee to deal with grievances which are within its jurisdiction and which are brought before it by affected persons, the Vice Chancellor, on 25/02/2022, issued Directions to that effect under Direction No. 12/2022. These Directions have been issued under Sub Section (8) of Section 12 of the Act of 2016. Sub Section (8) of Section 12 of the Act of 2016 reads thus :
“12. Powers and duties of Vice-Chancellor.
(1) to (7) ……………………
(8) Where any matter is required to be regulated by the Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations, but no Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations are made in that behalf or where there is an exigency to amend Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations, the Vice-Chancellor may, for the time being, regulate the matter by issuing such directions as he thinks necessary, and shall, at the earliest opportunity thereafter, place them before the Management Council or other authority or body concerned for approval. He shall, at the same time, place before such authority or body for consideration the draft of the Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations, as the case may be, required to be made in that behalf:
Provided that, such direction shall have to be converted into Statute, Ordinance or Regulations as the case may be, within six months of issuing of such direction failing which such direction shall automatically lapse.”
9. One can understand the importance of issuance of Directions from the wordings of Sub Section (8) of Section 12 of the Act of 2016. As is evident, the Directions will be required in an extraordinary situation where the Vice Chancellor finds that the matter is required to be regulated by the statute, ordinances or regulations, but no statutes, ordinances or regulations are made in that behalf. In such an eventuality, while the Vice Chancellor is empowered to issue Directions, he is duty-bound to place such Directions before the Management Council or concerned body, at the earlier, for approval and to also place draft of the statute, ordinances or regulations, a
