High Court
Legal Reasoning
1002.WP-5025-2006.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWrit Petition No. 5025 Of 2006WithCivil Application No.10547 Of 2024andCivil Application No.10549 Of 2024Suman Anantrao Lamture,Age: 30 years, Occu.: Nil,R/o. Bhimnagar, Ahmedpur,District Latur... Petitioner Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,General Administration Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai.2.Swami Ramanand TeerthMarathwada University,Nanded, through its Vice Chancellor.3.The Grievance Committee,Swami Ramanand TeerthMarathwada University,Nanded, through its President.4.Vichar Vikas Mandal,Ahmedpur, District Latur.5.Mahatma Gandhi College,Ahmedpur, District Latur.6.Ramesh Madhavrao Biradar,Age Major, Occ. Service,R/o C/o Mahatma GandhiCollege, Ahmedpur,District Latur. .. Respondents****** Mr. Ajay S. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner.[1] 1002.WP-5025-2006.odt* Mr. R.S. Wani, Additional Government Pleader for respondentNo.1 /State.* Mr. Uday S. Malte, Advocate for respondent No.2 & 3.* Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for Respondent No.4 & 5.* Mr. Ameya N. Sabnis, Advocate for Respondent No.6 (Absent).*****_______________________________________________________ CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.Date On Which The Arguments Were Heard : 27 SEPTEMBER 2024Date On Which The Judgment Is Pronounced : 18 OCTOBER 2024_______________________________________________________J U D G M E N T [ Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J. ] : .Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent ofthe parties. Heard both the sides finally. 2.The petitioner who is seeking appointment as a Lecturer inthe respondent no.5/College, is challenging decision of therespondent no.4/Grievance Committee taken in the meetingdated 02.12.2005 and is also challenging the approval given tothe respondent no.6 due to lapsing of reservation. 3.The petitioner belongs to scheduled caste category. Shewas holding qualification of M.A.(English). Respondent no.6 isfrom unreserved category who is his contemporary whoseapproval is under challenge. Respondent no.5/College is aidedone which is run by the respondent no.4/Institution. The collegeis affiliated to respondent no.2/University. Respondent no.3 is the[2] 1002.WP-5025-2006.odtGrievance Committee constituted under the provisions ofMaharashtra Universities Act of 1993.4.It is the case of the petitioner that advertisement for therecruitment of two posts of SC/ST category alongwith other postswere issued on 02.07.2000. Petitioner and respondent no.6 hadapplied in pursuance of the advertisement. The SelectionCommittee interviewed them and they were appointed on13.10.2000. The petitioner was appointed against second postwhereas the respondent no.6 was appointed against first post.The first post was being advertised for sixth time and thereforethere was no lapsing of reservation. 5.The service of the petitioner was approved for the year2000-2001 temporarily against ST category vide order dated16.02.2001 issued by the University. The service of respondentno.6 was approved for the year 2000-2001 against ST/SCcategory temporarily vide order dated 19.05.2001. The petitionermade complaints to the respondents as she was belonging to SCcategory and eligible to be appointed permanently. She wascontinued in services up to 2003. Her services were terminatedon 13.07.2003. 6.The petitioner approached the respondent no.3/GrievanceCommittee vide representation dated 14.10.2005. Themanagement was called upon by the Grievance Committee.Inquiry was conducted and in a meeting dated 02.12.2005, thedecision was taken overruling the objection of the petitioner[3]
Legal Reasoning
1002.WP-5025-2006.odtwhich was approved by the Management Council on 08.12.2005.Against the said decision, present petition is filed. 7.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitionerwas eligible to be appointed against the post of SC instead ofrespondent no.6. In view of Government Resolution dated05.12.1994, the petitioner should have been appointed in theyear 1999/2000 when the interviews were conducted on13.10.2000. She was more meritorious than the respondentno.6. It is further submitted that selection of the respondent no.6was illegal and against the policy of reservation. To corroboratethis, reliance is placed on the written protest submitted by Mr.Prabhakar Pohare who was nominee of Vice Chancellor in theSelection Committee. The appointment of respondent no.6 isagainst written instructions dated 07.04.1998 issued by theDeputy Registrar of the respondent/University. 8.Respondent Nos. 4 to 5 contested the petition by filingaffidavit-in-reply. The remaining respondents adopted thesubmissions of the respondent/Management. Learned CounselMr. V.D. Gunale appearing for respondent no.4 and 5 submittedthat there were two posts of lecturer for English earmarked forSC/ST category. One post was advertised on 28.11.1995, butsuitable candidate was not available. As per GovernmentResolution dated 05.12.1994, after attempting to recruit theposts from that category for five times, the advertisement for thesaid post was published on 6th occasion in 2001. Respondent no.6being candidate of unreserved category was appointed,[4] 1002.WP-5025-2006.odtsimultaneously the petitioner was given appointment to thesecond post of ST category. It is further contended that themanagement tendered their reply to the objection of thepetitioner on 30.04.2001. 9.The petitioner was appointed against the second post of thereservation in pursuance of advertisement dated 04.12.2001,which was its 5th time. The petitioner was continued in theservice up to 2003. She was terminated vide letter dated15.06.2003 due to appointment of one Mr. L.D. Jogdand who wasbelonging to SC category and having NET/SET. The petitioner didnot challenge the termination. Thereafter she was continuedfrom 14.07.2003 and lastly terminated on 28.02.2004.10.It is contended that the complaint of the petitioner wasrejected by the Deputy Registrar of the University vide letterdated 26.04.2004. The respondent no.6 tendered voluntaryretirement on 29.02.2004. The petitioner did not agitate againsther termination. She belatedly approached the GrievanceCommittee and therefore her claim was rightly held to be nottenable. 11.We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. 12.The operation of the reservation policy and theinterchangeability of the reserved posts is regulated byGovernment Resolution dated 05.12.1994. It is stipulated that ifthe post reserved for a particular category cannot be filled in for[5] 1002.WP-5025-2006.odtwant of availability of suitable candidate then such a post wouldbe kept vacant for five times. During the five years, attempts torecruit suitable candidate need to be met. After five years, it ispermissible to recruit the post by interchangeability. If thecandidate is not available in the 6th attempt also then from thenext year, the reservation would lapse. Same modality isreiterated by written instructions dated 07.04.1998 issued by theUniversity. 13.In the present matter, two posts for SC/ST were earmarkedfor subject English. The attempts of the Management to recruitthese posts can be demonstrated from page no.27 of the paperbook which is as follows : S.T. (First Post) S.T. (Second Post)1. First Attempt Interview date 28.11.1995Candidate : B.T. Lahane2.Second Attempt Interview date 20.07.1996Candidate : R.M. Biradar (Respondent No.6)(Open Category)3.Third Attempt Interview date 13.12.1997Candidate : R.M. Biradar (Respondent No.6)(Open Category)1. First Attempt Interview date : 13.12.1997Candidate : V.J. Chavan4.Fourth Attempt Interview date 19.09.1998Candidate : R.M. Biradar (Respondent No.6)(Open Category)2. Second Attempt Interview date : 19.09.1997Candidate : V.J. Chavan5.Fifth Attempt Interview date 15.09.1999Candidate : R.M. Biradar (Respondent No.6)(Open Category)3. Third Attempt Interview date : 15.09.1999Candidate : S.A. Lamture (Petitioner)(Scheduled Caste Category)6.Sixth Attempt ST/SC (Sixth Advertisement for one post)Interview date 13.10.2000Candidate : R.M. Biradar (Respondent No.6)(Open Category)4. Fourth Attempt Interview date : 13.10.2000Candidate : S.A. Lamture(Petitioner)(Scheduled Caste Category)[6] 1002.WP-5025-2006.odt14.The petitioner for the first time appeared for the interviewin the year 1999-2000 alongwith respondent no.6. Interviewswere held on 15.09.1999 and she was appointed against thesecond post vide order dated 18.09.1999. She accepted theappointment and did not raise any grievance. Thereafter in thenext academic year, again the advertisement was issued whichwas 6th consecutive attempt for the first post and 4th attempt forthe second post. The petitioner was appointed on the secondpost on 13.10.2000 and simultaneously respondent no.6 wasappointed against the first post as the suitable candidate was notavailable for the first post. She could have raised the protest forher appointment against second post. It was open for her toclaim the first post which was advertised for the 6th time forwhich she was eligible. For the reasons best known to her, nogrievance was made, nor she approached GrievanceCommittee/forum. 15.The advertisement dated 02.07.2000 was 6th attempt andthe respondent no.6 was appointed against it, due tointerchangeability. In the next year, reservation stood lapsed byvirtue of the approval granted by the University. The respondentno.6 being a candidate of unreserved category was rightlyappointed to the de-reserved post. Simultaneously, the petitionerwas appointed against second post which was advertised for the5th occasion. Thus the petitioner acquiesced the right in theacademic year 1999-2000 and again in 2000-2001, by the time,on 16.02.2001, she was given temporary approval vide letterdated 16.02.2001. Respondent no.6 was granted approval by[7] 1002.WP-5025-2006.odtletter dated 19.05.2001 with a rider that in the next year stepsshould be taken for de-reservation of the post. The approvalswere also not challenged by the petitioner in time. 16.The petitioner made complaints in writing on 19.02.2004and thereafter on 11.03.2004. Her objections vide applicationdated 26.02.2004 were overruled by Joint Registrar of theUniversity vide letter dated 26.04.2004. She approached therespondent no.3/Grievance Committee on or about 14.10.2005.The cognizance of her complaint was taken by the GrievanceCommittee. The respondent/Management submitted reply to thegrievance made by the petitioner then inquiry was conducted bythe Grievance Committee on 02.12.2005. The objections wereoverruled and her claim was rejected. 17.Interestingly the petitioner preferred to work with therespondent/Management temporarily against the second post inthe year 1999-2000 up to 2003-2004. During this period shecould have approached appropriate forum ventilating hergrievances. It appears that when her services were terminatedby letter dated 28.02.2004 by the Management, she persuadedremedy with the Grievance Committee. We do not find anyillegality in overruling her objection by the Grievance Committeeshe had approached the Committee after four years. 18.We are of the considered view that the petitioneracquiesced with the situation for more than six years becausewhen she was appointed in the year 1999-2000, she had a cause[8]
Decision
1002.WP-5025-2006.odtto approach the Grievance Committee. 19.After the termination of the petitioner from services videletter dated 28.02.2004, she ceased to be employee of therespondent/Management. Respondent no.6 continued to renderservices with the respondent/Management till his resignation wasaccepted on 29.02.2004. This petition was filed on 15.04.2006,challenging the decision of the Grievance Committee rendered inthe meeting dated 02.12.2005. The petitioner is out of servicessince last 20 years. It is not possible to grant any relief to thepetitioner due to acquiescence and lapse on her part which arenot explained properly. 20.The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. CivilApplications are disposed of. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEnajeeb..[9]