Bombay High Court
Mauli Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kingao ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... on 11 September, 2019
Author: Sunil B. Shukre
Bench: Sunil B. Shukre, Milind N. Jadhav
wp6752.18.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6752/2018
PETITIONERS : 1. Mauli Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kingao Raja,
through its Secretary, Ravindra Bhanudas Mundhe,
aged 38 yrs.,Office at Sant Bhagwan Baba Arts College
Sindhedraja, Tal. Sindkhedraja, Dist. Buldhana.
2. Sant Bhagwan Baba Arts College, Sindkhedraja,
through its officiating Principal, Sindkhedraja,
Tal. Sindkhedraja, Dist. Buldhana.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS:1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Department of Higher and Technical Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Director of Higher Education,
State of Maharashtra, Central Building, Pune - 1.
3. The Joint Director of Higher Education,
State of Maharashtra, Amravati Division, Amravati.
4. Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University
through its Registrar, Amravati.
5. Dr. (Mrs.) Shilpa Dipak Kakade, aged Major, Occu-
Service, Assistant Professor, Sant Bhagwan Baba Arts
College, Sindkhedraja, Tal. Sindkhedraja, Dist. Buldhana.
6. Shri Satyanarayan Natha Nagare, aged major, Occu.
Service, Assistant Professor, Sant Bhagwan Baba Arts
College, Sindkhedraja, Tal. Sindkhedraja, Dist. Buldhana.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Counsel for petitioners
Mrs. K.R. Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3
Shri S.S. Ghate, Counsel for respondent no.4
Shri A.C. Deshpande, Counsel for respondent no.5
Shri T.S. Deshpande, Counsel for respondent no.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 11/09/2019
::: Uploaded on - 17/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 21:26:28 :::
wp6752.18.odt
2
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. From the documents placed on record, we find that the petitioner no.1 - Society was granted permission to start one section of B.A. Part-I on no grant basis and that was initially for the time being. We further find that the additional section was also sanctioned on no grant basis by the order passed on 4/4/2005.
3. The petitioner no.1, finding that it had met all the parameters necessary for bringing both the sections on grant-in-aid basis, sent a proposal dated 1/10/2004 to the respondent no.2 for bringing both the sections on grant-in-aid basis in phased manner starting from 2001-2002 to 2004-05. The proposal sought sanction of grants up to the extent of 25% for the year 2001-02, 50% for the year 2002-03, 75% for the year 2003-04 and 100% for the year 2004-05. It appears to us that this proposal was not accepted by the respondent no.2 and therefore, there was a writ petition filed by the affected teachers who are respondent nos.5 and 6 in the present ::: Uploaded on - 17/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 21:26:28 ::: wp6752.18.odt 3 petition. In that petition, the State Government was directed to freshly consider the proposal of the petitioner no.1 in accordance with law and thereafter the impugned order dated 8/5/2017 came to be passed repeating the history. Once again the proposal was rejected and the reason stated was that the petitioner no.2 - College did not send any proposal seeking sanction of grants immediately after 2004-05 and that after the year 2010-11 till 2016-17, the strength of the students in the second section was not up to the minimum required number of the benchmark.
4. The first reason for not sending of any proposal as mentioned in the impugned order is against the record and the own admissions given by the respondent no.2. The proposal had already been sent by the petitioner no.1 to the respondent no.2. Copy of this proposal is also filed on record. Therefore, the first ground taken in the impugned order is absolutely illegal.
5. As regards the second ground for rejection of the proposal also, we find that it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is an admitted position that till the year 2010-11 the strength of the students in the second section of B.A. Part-I had fulfilled the benchmark and therefore, there was no reason for the respondent ::: Uploaded on - 17/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 21:26:28 ::: wp6752.18.odt 4 no.2 to have rejected the proposal. Of course, it is true that after 2012 there were no students in the petitioner no.2- College but that was because of the fact that the salary grants were suddenly stopped with effect from the year 2012. In fact, the admitted position is that since the grant of permission to run both sections of B.A. Part-I, salaries of the staff have been paid with the approval of the respondent no.2. The Government Resolution dated 8/8/1991 also indicated that after completion of the period of three years from the grant of permission, the College would be considered for sanction of grants in phased manner, i.e., 25% for the first year after having the required eligibility, then up to 50% and finally up to 100%, provided the sections have the requisite strength of the students. In the present case, as stated earlier, both the sections had the requisite strength of the students till the year 2010-11 and there is no dispute about this fact. All these facts and circumstances of the case would show that the petitioners are entitled to be brought on grant-in-aid basis in terms of the Government Resolution dated 8/8/1991. If there were no students admitted to the second section of B.A. Part-I after the year 2011, a suitable decision regarding the teachers being declared as surplus could be taken on the proposal submitted by the ::: Uploaded on - 17/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 21:26:28 ::: wp6752.18.odt 5 petitioners. But that is entirely a different issue. It has got nothing to do with bringing of the second section for B.A. Part-I on grant-in-aid basis from the date on which it became entitled to in terms of the Government Resolution dated 8/8/1991. The reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 also does not throw any light on the facts and circumstances, which would otherwise disentitle the petitioners from seeking approval for sanction of grants to them.
6. In the result, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and it must go. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer Clauses - (i) and (ii).
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar, P.S.
::: Uploaded on - 17/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 21:26:28 :::