MRS. MADHURI SANJEEV RATNAPARKHI AND ORS vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS

Case Type: NaN

Date of Judgment: 15-03-2019

Preview image for MRS. MADHURI SANJEEV RATNAPARKHI AND ORS  vs.  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS

Full Judgment Text

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 18/04/2019
cwp 5089-15.doc
DDR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5089 OF 2015
Mrs. Madhuri Sanjeev Ratnaparkhi
& ors. ..Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents
….........
Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for petitioners.
Ms. Rimi Jain I/b. Rui A. Rodrigues for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Mrs. R.M. Shinde, AGP for State.
….........
     CORAM :  S.C. DHARMADHIKARI   & 
                   M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
th
        RESERVED ON     : 6  FEBRUARY, 2019
th
PRONOUNCED ON :  15  MARCH, 2019
      
           
  JUDGMENT (PER   M.S.KARNIK, J.):­
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard
finally by consent of the parties.  
2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging
the decision dated 27/11/2015 taken by the respondent No. 1 –
Principal   Secretary,   Higher   and   Technical   Education
Department,   rejecting   the   proposal   of   the   petitioners   for
1/14
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:16 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 18/04/2019
cwp 5089-15.doc
converting the part time lecturer posts in the college to full time
posts.
3. The facts of the case in brief are as under :
The   petitioner   No.1   was   appointed   on   temporary
basis   as   a   part   time   Lecturer   in   the   subject   of   Family
Management   Resources   on   17/8/1993.   After   following   the
procedure prescribed by the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994
(hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short) , the petitioner
No.1 was appointed on the post of part time Lecturer with effect
from   25/7/1995.   The   petitioner   No.1's   services   came   to   be
th
confirmed by the Registrar of the University vide order dated 4
September, 1997. The petitioner No.1 was granted senior scale
with   effect   from   19/3/2005   on   completion   of   the   requisite
number of years of service. Likewise the petitioner No.2 and
petitioner No.3 were appointed as part time Lecturers.
4. As   there   was   workload   of   full   time   Lecturers
available,   the   respondent   No.2   –  SNDT   Women's   University,
made   a   request   to   the   respondent   No.1   –   Joint   Director   of
2/14
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:16 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 18/04/2019
cwp 5089-15.doc
Higher   Education   for   permission   to   convert   the   part   time
Lecturer posts into full time Lecturer posts, with a request that
the   petitioners   be   appointed   in   the   said   posts.   The
communication making this request for conversion of part time
Lecturer posts into full time posts was sent on 11/2/2011 by the
respondent No.3 to the Joint Director of Higher Education. Even
the   respondent   No.2   –   SNDT   Women's   University,   on
28/6/2011,   made   a   specific   recommendation   to   the   Joint
Director in favour of the petitioners. 
5. The respondent No. 2 – University granted approval
to the petitioners' appointment on full time basis considering the
workload available vide orders dated 11/6/2010 and 6/4/2011.
Thus, by these orders, existing permanent posts of part time
Lecturer, was converted to that of full time Lecturer posts by the
respondent No.2 – University. The petitioners since the date of
the conversion are rendering services as full time Lecturers on
the said posts.
6. The   petitioners   place   reliance   on   the   G.R.   dated
3/14
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:16 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 18/04/2019
cwp 5089-15.doc
8/8/1996, which is at page 30 of the paper­book. This G.R.
provides that if a part time teacher is appointed by following
due process of selection by Selection Committee, and if he is
holding   necessary   educational   qualifications,   upon   the   post
being converted into a full time post, the part time Lecturer is to
be appointed in the full time post without going through the
process of regular Selection. It is submitted that the University
by three different letters had requested for conversion of the
part time  Lecturer posts into full time posts. Not only that, the
appointments   are   made   as   full   time   Lecturer   effective   from
11/6/2010 in case of the petitioner No.1 and from 6/4/2011 in
case   of   the   petitioner   Nos.2   and   3.   The   petitioners   are
discharging their duties as full time Lecturers in these posts.
7. Relying   on   the   University   Statute   124,   learned
Counsel for petitioners submitted that if, for any subject, the
part­time   teacher   is   appointed   through   the   proper   selection
committee after following due procedure, and if subsequently
workload in the same subject is increased to 12 periods or more
4/14
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:16 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 18/04/2019
cwp 5089-15.doc
due to any reason, then such part­time teacher shall be made
full   time.   It   is   the   contention   of   learned   Counsel   that   the
workload  is  more   than   12   periods  in  a  week  and  even  the
respondent No.2 in terms of the G.R. and the Statute converted
the post of part time Lecturers into full time Lecturers subject to
the approval of the Director of Higher Education, Pune.
8. The   proposal   of   the   petitioners   for   approval   was
forwarded to the Joint Director of Higher Education. The Joint
Director   of   Higher   Education   recommended   the   case   of   the
petitioners on 1/1/2013 to the Director of Higher Education.
The Director of Higher Education forwarded the proposal of the
petitioners   to   the   Principal   Secretary   of   the   Higher   and
Technical   Education   viz.   the   respondent   No.1   herein   on
15/6/2013.   The   proposal   forwarded   for   approval   remained
pending with the respondent No.1 without any decision being
taken.  
9. In the meantime, respondent No.2­ University issued
an   advertisement   for   filling   up   the   posts   occupied   by   the
5/14
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:16 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 18/04/2019
cwp 5089-15.doc
petitioners. This Petition therefore came to be filed.  By an order
dated 29/10/2015, this Court directed the respondent No.1 to
decide the proposal forwarded by respondent No.2. During the
pendency of this Petition, by an order dated 27/11/2015, the
proposal   for   approval   of   the   petitioners'   appointment   was
rejected.
10. Learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent
No.1 invited our attention to the affidavit­in­reply filed by Mr.
Rohidas B. Kale, In charge Joint Director, Higher Education,
Mumbai Region, Mumbai, on behalf of the respondent No.1. In
the affidavit it is stated that by a G.R. dated 27/5/2009, staffing
pattern  of the  respondent  No.2  –  University was fixed after
approval of the High Power Committee constituted under G.R.
dated 10/1/2001. As per the staffing pattern there is one part­
time   post   sanctioned   for   the   subject   of   Family   Resource
Management   and   two   part­time   posts   sanctioned   for   Food
Science   and   Nutrition   for   respondent   No.3   –   College.     In
paragraph 6 of the affidavit­in­reply, it is stated that the staffing
6/14
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:16 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 18/04/2019
cwp 5089-15.doc
pattern sanctioned for S.N.D.T. Women's University is as per the
G.R. dated 27/5/2009 which was inter alia approved by the
High   Power   Committee   headed   by   the   Chief   Secretary
constituted vide G.R. dated 10/1/2001 and therefore, it is not
possible to make any changes in the said staffing pattern at their
level. This has been informed to respondent No.2 – University by
letter dated 27/11/2015.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 as
well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
Nos. 2 and 3. We have also gone through the Petition and the
annexures thereto. We have perused the affidavit­in­reply filed
by   the   respondent   No.1   as   also   the   rejoinder   filed   by   the
petitioners thereto.
12. The petitioners were working as part time Lecturers
and appointed by a duly constituted Selection Committee as per
the Rules in force. It is not in dispute that the workload in the
respondent No.3 – college increased, therefore, the respondent
7/14
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:16 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 18/04/2019
cwp 5089-15.doc
No.2 – University converted the posts of part time Lecturers to
full time Lecturer posts and a proposal thereon was submitted to
the Joint Director of Higher Education for approval. 
13. Even the appointment of the petitioners on part­time
basis   was  in   accordance   with  prescribed  selection   procedure
under Section 76(2) of the said Act. On account of there being
workload   for   full   time   Lecturers,   the   respondent   No.2   –
University converted the existing permanent post of part time
Lecturers   to   those   of   full   time   Lecturers.   It   is   specifically
mentioned   that   the   posts   are   converted  to   full   time   due   to
increase in workload as per G.R. dated 8/8/1996. This was,
however, subject to approval of Director of Higher Education,
Pune.
14. That   there   is   adequate   workload   for   full   time
lecturers is not in dispute. Even the Joint Director of Higher
Education recommended the case of the petitioners for approval
and for passing appropriate order for conversion of the part time
lecturer   post   to   full   time   lecturer   posts.   Even   after   certain
8/14
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:16 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 18/04/2019
cwp 5089-15.doc
queries were raised, on compliance, the Joint Director of Higher
Education   again   recommended   the   case   of   the   present
petitioners on 1/1/2013 to the Director of Higher Education
who forwarded the proposal to the Principal Secretary, Higher
and Technical Education Department.
15. The Statutes of the respondent No.2 – University,
more particularly Statute 124 clearly mentions that if, for any
subject,  a part­time  teacher is  appointed through a  properly
constituted selection committee and if subsequently workload in
the same subject is increased to 12 periods or more, due to any
reason, then such part­time teacher shall be made full time. As
observed earlier, the part­time appointment of the petitioners is
through   the   proper   Selection   Committee   constituted   for   the
purpose. In terms of the statute, even the University having
realised that the workload has increased and that there being
adequate workload for a full time Lecturer, has submitted the
proposal for approval for conversion of the post of part­time
Lecturers as full time. Pursuant to the conversion of the posts to
9/14
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:16 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 18/04/2019
cwp 5089-15.doc
full time by the University, the petitioners have been discharging
their duties as full time Lecturers.  The proposal for conversion
and approval was recommended by the Joint Director of Higher
Education   and   even   the   Director   of   High   Education   has
forwarded the recommendations to the respondent No.1.
th
16. The G.R. dated 8   August, 1996 clearly mentions
that if the appointment of a teacher on a part time post is in
accordance with the procedure prescribed, then, for the purpose
of   his   appointment   on   full   time   basis,   there   is   no   need   to
undergo a fresh selection process. The petitioners have requisite
qualifications   required   for   appointment   as   Lecturers.   In   fact
though the proposals for approval were submitted as far back as
in 2009 and 2011, the impugned order rejecting the proposals
came to be passed only on 27/11/2015.
17. As   narrated   earlier,   in   view   of   the   increased
workload,   the   University   converted   the   post   of   part   time
Lecturers to full time and the petitioners are working as full time
Lecturers   pursuant   to   such   conversion.   The   record   clearly
10/14
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:16 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 18/04/2019
cwp 5089-15.doc
indicates that there is more than adequate workload available
for the posts of full time Lecturers on which the petitioners are
appointed. The University having taken a decision in terms of
the statutes applicable to them,  converted the posts of part time
Lecturers   to   full   time   Lecturers   in   view   of   the   increased   in
workload, and as even the Joint Director of Higher Education
positively recommended the proposal of the University for such
conversion, there was no reason why the said proposal deserved
a rejection. 
18. The   impugned   order   mentions   that   as   per   the
staffing pattern of the University there are seven approved posts
of part time Lecturers. For S.N.D.T. College of Home Science,
Pune, three part­time Lecturers posts are approved.   The only
reason for rejection of the proposal is that since the staffing
pattern   is   in   place,   the   three   posts   of   part­time   Assistant
Lecturers cannot be converted into full time Assistant Lecturer
posts. This reasoning, in our opinion, is not just and proper.  The
staffing pattern undoubtedly is based on the workload available
11/14
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:16 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 18/04/2019
cwp 5089-15.doc
at the relevant point of time. Over a period of time as the
workload is increased, as per the provision in the statute viz.
Statute 124, the University decided to convert the part time
posts held by the petitioners to full time basis. When there is a
adequate   workload   available   on   which   the   petitioners   are
already discharging their duties, and as there exists a provision
in the statute for such a conversion, rejecting the proposal for
approval  on the ground that the staffing pattern is finalized as
th
per G.R. dated 27  May, 2009  is unsustainable. No doubt, G.R.
th
dated 27  May, 2009 provides for fixing a staffing pattern, but
to then say that changes in the staffing pattern is not possible
despite admitted increase in workload is untenable. The G.R.
dated 27/5/2009 only provides for a staffing pattern which was
approved by the High Power Committee headed by the Chief
Secretary which was constituted vide G.R. dated 10/1/2001.
The staffing pattern obviously is based on the workload that
existed as on  the  date  when  the  proposal  for finalizing the
staffing pattern was submitted. The said G.R. does not override
the Statutes of the University as also the earlier G.R. of 1996.
12/14
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:16 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 18/04/2019
cwp 5089-15.doc
Nor does the fixing of the staffing pattern take away the power
of respondent No.1 to approve proposals in case of increase in
workload.   In view of the specific provision viz. Statute 124
which exists and also in view of the G.R. of 1996, we do not find
that the respondent No.1 is justified in rejecting the proposal for
approval for conversion of the posts of part­time Lecturers to
that of full time Lecturers. On the contrary, this was a fit case for
the   respondent   No.1   to   have   granted   approval   for   such
conversion, as not only the University in accordance with Statute
124 as well as the G.R. of 1996, converted the posts of part time
Lecturers to full time Lecturers posts in view of the increase in
workload; but even the petitioners who are discharging duties as
full   time   Lecturers   were   appointed   initially   as   part   time
Lecturers after a proper selection process, who by virtue of G.R.
of 1996 need not undergo a fresh selection process and are
entitled to continue on the posts upon its conversion to full time.
The Petition, therefore, deserves to succeed. 
19. The impugned order dated 27/11/2015 is quashed
13/14
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:16 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 18/04/2019
cwp 5089-15.doc
and set aside. The respondent No.1 is directed to approve the
proposal submitted by the respondent No.2 as recommended by
the   Joint   Director   of   Higher   Education   in   terms   of   his
recommendation dated 4/5/2012 at Exhibit 'N' which is at page
38 of the paper­book.
20. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as
to costs.
(M.S. KARNIK, J.)  ( S.C. DHARMADHIKARI , J.)
14/14
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:16 :::