High Court · 2024
Legal Reasoning
(4) WP-4307-2022.odtgiving instructions on full time basis in affiliatedcolleges or approved institutions in the University.”7.The plain reading of the aforesaid definition would showthat the Librarian is not inclused under the categories of teachersmade therein. Even the residual entry of other persons teaching orgiving instructions on full time basis would not include Librarian,since it is not demonstrated before us that the Librarian wasbestowed with the responsibilities of passing the instructions to thestudents on full time basis. Reliance of the learned Advocateappearing for the petitioner on the definition of the “Teacher”employed under Section 2(34) of the Maharashtra University Actcannot be derived in the facts of this case, since the Institutionwhere the petitioner worked has been affiliated to the HealthUniversity, governed by independent statute i.e. MaharashtraUniversity of Health Sciences Act, 1998. The definition in PublicUniversities Act 2016 or Non-Health Universities Act cannot beburrowed for extending benefits in favour of the petitioner. 8.It appears that the Senate of Health University, Nashikhas passed a Resolution and recommended to the StateGovernment to amend the definition of Teacher in the HealthUniversity Act so as to include Librarian or Assistant Librarianwithin the definition of ‘Teacher’ and get the uniformity forLibrarians working in the affiliated colleges either under HealthUniversity or Public University. However, till this date no suchamendment is brought in vogue. Petitioner cannot seek benefit ofsuch recommendation, unless it has been accepted and made partstatute. 9.This Court in case of Ravindra ChandrashekharKulkarni (supra) dealt with the selfsame issue and declined to (5) WP-4307-2022.odtaccept the submission that the “Librarian” under HealthUniversity to be treated at par with the “Librarian” under PublicUniversity, in absence of the amendment in the HealthUniversities Act. We have no reason to deviate from the viewtaken by this Court in case of Ravindra ChandrashekharKulkarni (supra).10.Although the learned Advocate for the petitioner relieson the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in case of P. S.Ramamohana Rao Vs. A. P. Agricultural University andAnother1 to contend that in case of premature retirement by wronginterpretation of the Rules, the petitioner would be entitled toreceive all emoluments upto the age of actual retirement, howeverin light of the findings recorded in the aforesaid paragraphs, wefind that petitioner failed to make out any case for exercise of ourwrit jurisdiction under Article 226 of constitution of India. Thereis no infirmity in the impugned order declaring petitioner to besuperannuated/retired on attaining the age of 58 years fixed forsuperannuation of the Librarian. Consequently, there is no meritin the Writ Petition and the same is dismissed.11.Rule is discharged.(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGE JUDGEDevendra/April-20241(1997) 8 SCC 350.
Arguments
(1) WP-4307-2022.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.4307 OF 2022SUDHAKAR GOVIND SHELARAGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED (LIBRARIAN)R/O: SHIVAJI NAGAR, ADINATH VASAHAT RAHURI, TQ. RAHUI, DIST. AHMEDNAGAR...PetitionerVersus1.The State of Maharashtra Through its SecretaryMedical Education and Drug Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2.Shri Vivekanand Nursing Home Trust,Shri Shivaji Nagar, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its Chairman/Trust Superintendent3.Maharashtra University of Health Sciences,Nashik, Maharashtra4.Dr. Kuldip s/o Raj Kholi,Director Ayush Department, Govt. Dental College, 4th Floor, Mumbai-4000325.The PrincipalAyurved Mahavidyalaya Shivaji Nagar, Tq. Rahuri, District, Ahmednagar...Respondents …Ms. Laxmi R. Thakur h/f Mrs. S. N. Salunke, Advocate for thePetitioner.Mr. N. S. Tekale, AGP for Respondent No.1.Mr. A. V. Hon, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5. … CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. DATED : 04th APRIL 2024.JUDGMENT (Per: S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.):- 1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consentof the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage ofadmission. (2) WP-4307-2022.odt2.The petitioner approaches this Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India impugning the order dated 03.05.2021passed by respondent no.2-Educational Institution and seeks toquash and set aside the order of superannuation and continue hisservices upto attaining age of 60-62 years.3.The petitioner contends that he was appointed as anAssistant Librarian at respondent no.5-Ayurved Mahavidyalayasince 04.01.1992. He was promoted as Librarian. Suddenly, on03.05.2021, he received communication from the President of theTrust-respondent no.2, informing that since he is completing 58years of age, he shall retire on superannuation on 31.05.2021.Accordingly, he shall be discharged from the service. The petitionermade representation dated 09.03.2022 to the Principal ofrespondent no.5-College based on Government Resolution dated22.08.2012 and pointed out that the age of retirement for Librarianis fixed to 60 years, which can be extended up to 62 years. As such,he is prematurely discharged. However, respondents failed to takecognizance of his representation. Hence, this petition for issuanceof Writ.4.Ms. Thakur, learned Advocate holding for Mrs. Salunke,learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner was appointed as an Assistant Librarian, then he waspromoted as Librarian. He is discharged from service at the age of58 years. She would point out that Maharashtra University ofHealth Sciences-respondent no.3 passed Resolution dated08.04.2011, enhancing the age of retirement of the teachers to 62years. Similarly, she relies upon the communication dated26.07.2010 issued by the Registrar of Maharashtra University ofHealth Sciences to contend that the Librarian compassed within (3) WP-4307-2022.odtdefinition of “Teacher” under Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994,which was holding the field before inception of the HealthUniversities Act, 1998. She would further refer to definition of‘Teacher’ under Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, thatincludes “Librarian”. She would further rely upon the judgment ofthe Division Bench of this Court in case of Mr. Vaijanath MarutiKadam Vs. The Government of Maharashtra & ors. passed inWrit Petition No.3838/2007 dated 03.03.2008 to contend that incase retirement and discharge is declared invalid, the petitionercan be bestowed with continuity of service and consequentialbenefits. 5.Mr. Tekale, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and Mr.Hon, learned Advocates appearing for respondent nos.2 to 5strongly opposes the prayer in the petition. Mr. Tekale, learnedA.G.P. submits that the issue raised in this petition is consideredand decided by Division bench of this Court at principal seat incase of Ravindra Chandrashekhar Kulkarni Vs. The State ofMaharashtra & ors, [Writ Petition No.642/2021 dated17.02.2021] holding that the Librarian appointed in the Collegesaffiliated to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences doesnot get status of “Teacher” and the age of retirement of suchLibrarian would be 58 years.6.We have considered the submissions advanced by thelearned Advocate for the respective parties. It would be apposite torefer to the definition of “Teacher” as per Section 2(35) of theMaharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998, which readsthus:““teacher” means full time approved Demonstrators,Tutors, Assistant Lecturers, Lecturers, Readers, AssociateProfessors, Professors and other persons teaching or