2025 Supreme(Bom) 1111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Ravindra V. Ghuge, Gautam A. Ankhad, JJ.
Babasaheb Dyanoba Garje - Petitioner
Versus
Chaudhary Atar Singh Yadav Memorial Education Trust through its President & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 14685 of 2024, Writ Petition No. 14150 of 2024, Writ Petition No. 14165 of 2024, Writ Petition No. 14172 of 2024, Writ Petition No. 14206 of 2024, Writ Petition No. 17108 of 2024, Writ Petition No. 18439 of 2024
Decided On : 15-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni a/w Prathamesh Deshpande, Disha Rathod and Yash Agarwal
For the Respondent: Mr. Sandesh Shukla a/w Amit Singh, A. Saayed, Bhushan Bhadgale i/.b Abhay Nevagi & Associates
Employees' reliance on Grievance Committee orders necessitates timely compliance by universities under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act; non-implementation results in penalties.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 - Section 79 - Employees' grievances regarding non-implementation of Grievances Committee decisions by affiliated colleges leading to remedies sought under Article 226 - Colleges refusing to comply, citing sub-judice matters - The Penalties Uniform Statutes provide a framework for ensuring compliance and penalizing violations. (Paras 1-19)
(B) Grievances Committee Decisions - Quasi-judicial functions and remedies available to employees or management - Statute mandates prompt and appropriate implementation of decisions or face penalties. (Paras 6-21)
(C) Administrative Duty - Universities must ensure compliance with Grievance Committee orders, and complaints regarding non-implementation can invoke statutory disciplinary mechanisms. (Paras 9, 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
Multiple petitioners employed in affiliated colleges sought implementation of favorable decisions from Grievances Committees, facing refusal from colleges under the pretext of pending litigation.
Findings of Court:
The court directed universities to adhere strictly to provisions ensuring timely compliance with Grievances Committee decisions while outlining the penalties for non-compliance.
Issues: The key issue addressed was whether colleges can avoid implementing Grievances Committee rulings based on sub-judice claims or management petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the obligation of affiliated colleges under the Statutes to implement decisions promptly and highlighted potential disciplinary actions for violations, reinforcing the need for timely execution of orders.
Result: All petitioners' writ petitions except two segregated matters are disposed off with the directive for compliance within three months.
ORDER :
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.
1. In all these matters, the individual Petitioners are those employees who had approached the Grievances Committees of the respective Universities, under Section 79 of the MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES ACT , 2016. They are employed in the colleges which are affiliated to such Universities.
2. The common grievance voiced by the Petitioners is that, after the Grievances Committee delivers a verdict under Section 79 , and if such decision is in their favour, two developments/eventualities are observed by these Petitioners. Firstly, the colleges out rightly refuse to implement the directions of the Grievances Committee. Secondly, the Colleges make a statement that they have filed Writ Petitions before the learned Single Judge, and the proceedings are kept pending. Whenever the employee, who is the beneficiary of the order of the Grievances Committee, seeks implementation of the order by sending a representation or making an application to the management, the answer is that the order of the Grievances Committee is sub-judice in a Petition filed before the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
3. In the above backdrop, these Petitioners contend that they are practically rendered remediless and are made to run from pillar to post. They cannot get the benefits of the order of the Grievances Committee in the light of either of the above two stands which are normally taken by the Management.
4. We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned Senior Advocates and the learned Advocates for the appearing parties.
5. Keeping in view the common grievance of these Petitioners before us, we deem it appropriate to issue certain guidelines in light of the Uniform Statute No. 1 of 2019, which is brought into effect by the Notification dated 1st January, 2019 issued under the MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES ACT , 2016, by the Higher and Technical Education Department. The short title of the said Statute No. 1 of 2019 is “the Maharashtra Public Universities (Penalties to be imposed upon Erring Affiliated Colleges/Recognized Institutions) Uniform Statutes 2018” (hereinafter referred to as “the Penalties Uniform Statutes”). The Department of Higher and Technical Education has introduded the said Statute. It would be apposite to reproduce the same, more particularly clauses 2(1-10), 3(1-9), 4(1-8) and 5, hereunder:-
“2. Violation of Conditions. — An affiliated college or recognised institution or the management thereof, as the case may be, shall be liable for disciplinary action if it,—
(1) violates any of the conditions of affiliation/recognition as prescribed in sub-section of section 108 of the Act;
(2) acts in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the University and/or acts detrimental to the educational standards;
(3) submits eligibility forms, examination forms or any other forms beyond the date prescribed;
(4) neglects to take due care to maintain peaceful and proper atmosphere during the conduct of examinations;
(5) neglects to exercise due care in the smooth, proper and strict conduct of the examinations, leading to the instances of the mal-practices or adoption of unfair- means at the examination centres of the affiliated college or recognised institution ;
(6) permits or encourages directly or indirectly mal-practices in the conduct ofexaminations;
(7) collects unauthorized or higher fees from the students ;
(8) neglects to take appropriate disciplinary action as directed by the University against the Principal/ Director/teachers or other employees as per the relevant provisions in the Statute, Standard Code, or any other rules for the time being in force, as the case may be ;
(9) neglects to implement or comply with the decisions of the Grievances Redressal Cells of the University constituted under the relevant provisions of the MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES ACT , 2016 (Mah. Act. No. VI of 2017), appropriately and promptly ;
(10) commits any other act which, in the opinion of the Management Council