Full Judgment Text
2017:BHC-AS:21479-DB
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 11/08/2017
Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.315 OF 2017
Dr. Dineshchand Agrawal …. Petitioner
Versus
Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Government of India, New Delhi & Ors. …. Respondents
Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy, i/by Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Vinod Joshi for Respondent No.4.
Mr. Neel Helekar for Respondent No.5.
Mr. A.M. Sethana for Respondent Nos.1 and 6-UOI.
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.
TH
DATE : 7 AUGUST, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of
the parties.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for all
the Respondents.
th
3. This Petition has been preferred against the order dated 16
1/3
WP-315-17.doc
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:11:44 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 11/08/2017
September 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai,
in O.A. No.625 of 2016 preferred by the Petitioner.
4. In the O.A. No.625 of 2016, the Petitioner had challenged the
th
constitutionality of the Recruitment Rules dated 9 June 2012 for
appointment to the post of 'Principal' of Government Law College, Daman.
th
5. In the order dated 16 September 2016, it is observed by the
Tribunal that the Petitioner had already preferred a representation
ventilating his grievances and requesting the authorities to suitably amend
the Recruitment Rules for appointment to the said post of 'Principal'.
Hence, the Tribunal has directed Respondent No.3, i.e. the Secretary
(Education), Administration of Daman & Diu, Daman, to consider and
st
dispose of the first representation of the Petitioner dated 21 July 2014 in
accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order within four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned
counsel for all the Respondents agreed that Respondent No.3 is not an
appropriate authority to consider the representation of the Petitioner and
the appropriate authority would be Respondent No.1, i.e. Union of India,
through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Government of India, New Delhi.
2/3
WP-315-17.doc
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:11:44 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 11/08/2017
th
7. In this view of the matter, the order dated 16 September 2016
passed by the Tribunal is modified and instead of Respondent No.3
considering the representation, as directed by the Tribunal, Respondent
No.1, in consultation with Respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6, if found necessary,
to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner within a
period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
8. Till the representation of the Petitioner is decided, the post of
'Principal' of Government Law College, Daman, shall not be filled up.
9. Petition is disposed of.
10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
11. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]
3/3
WP-315-17.doc
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:11:44 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 11/08/2017
Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.315 OF 2017
Dr. Dineshchand Agrawal …. Petitioner
Versus
Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Government of India, New Delhi & Ors. …. Respondents
Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy, i/by Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Vinod Joshi for Respondent No.4.
Mr. Neel Helekar for Respondent No.5.
Mr. A.M. Sethana for Respondent Nos.1 and 6-UOI.
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.
TH
DATE : 7 AUGUST, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of
the parties.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for all
the Respondents.
th
3. This Petition has been preferred against the order dated 16
1/3
WP-315-17.doc
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:11:44 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 11/08/2017
September 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai,
in O.A. No.625 of 2016 preferred by the Petitioner.
4. In the O.A. No.625 of 2016, the Petitioner had challenged the
th
constitutionality of the Recruitment Rules dated 9 June 2012 for
appointment to the post of 'Principal' of Government Law College, Daman.
th
5. In the order dated 16 September 2016, it is observed by the
Tribunal that the Petitioner had already preferred a representation
ventilating his grievances and requesting the authorities to suitably amend
the Recruitment Rules for appointment to the said post of 'Principal'.
Hence, the Tribunal has directed Respondent No.3, i.e. the Secretary
(Education), Administration of Daman & Diu, Daman, to consider and
st
dispose of the first representation of the Petitioner dated 21 July 2014 in
accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order within four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned
counsel for all the Respondents agreed that Respondent No.3 is not an
appropriate authority to consider the representation of the Petitioner and
the appropriate authority would be Respondent No.1, i.e. Union of India,
through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Government of India, New Delhi.
2/3
WP-315-17.doc
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:11:44 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 11/08/2017
th
7. In this view of the matter, the order dated 16 September 2016
passed by the Tribunal is modified and instead of Respondent No.3
considering the representation, as directed by the Tribunal, Respondent
No.1, in consultation with Respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6, if found necessary,
to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner within a
period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
8. Till the representation of the Petitioner is decided, the post of
'Principal' of Government Law College, Daman, shall not be filled up.
9. Petition is disposed of.
10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
11. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]
3/3
WP-315-17.doc
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:11:44 :::