Satish and Others vs Government of Maharashtra and Others

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.—The petitioners before us complain that Commerce Faculty in respondent No. 3 College was allowed to be closed by the State Government on 3/5/2001 and, therefore, their services were terminated. The contention is that leave to close down College was not granted by the Nagpur University and, therefore, Management approached State Government. The State Government ignoring the report of the University has permitted closure. Therefore, closure is unsustainable. Our attention is also drawn to the report submitted by Nagpur University to respondent No. 3 College. The report shows that though admissions were not taken in requisite number, there was no Commerce Faculty in the vicinity of about 35 kms. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also states that during pendency of the present petition, petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 have been absorbed in other Colleges and their grievance will be redressed, if they are given continuity from the date they joined employment of respondent No. 3. Insofar as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, he states that petitioner No. 2 is still working on ad hoc basis with various Colleges from time to time.

During hearing, our attention has been invited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners to copy of Government Resolution dated 26/8/1999. The said copy has not been filed along with writ petition.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader has invited our attention to the fact that Hon''ble Apex Court was approached by the College for direction to State Government to provide grants. The Hon''ble Apex Court directed State Government, University and concerned College to resolve the issue. The State Government accordingly acceded to the request of the College as regards closure of Commerce Department. The Hon''ble Apex Court directed State Government to file affidavit in this respect within four weeks and thereafter on 14/9/2001 disposed of the matter. Thus, it is apparent that permission to close down College (Commerce Faculty) on 3/5/2001 was in the light of these developments. Perusal of the impugned order shows that it expressly refers to special leave petition No. 1979/2000 preferred by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before Hon''ble Apex Court. That order mentions that in Commerce Department of respondent No. 3 College from year 1998-99 not a single student has taken admission. The College had applied to University on 28/11/1998 seeking leave to close down Commerce Faculty. However, as it was not presented within stipulated time, it was rejected. From 1998-99, not a single student had taken admission in Commerce Faculty. Therefore, Government granted permission to close down that Faculty from 1998-99.

The correct number of Special Leave Petition filed before Hon''ble Apex Court appears to be 9179/2000. In that Special Leave Petition, on 2/3/2001, Hon''ble Apex Court has passed an order observing that dispute before it be resolved between State Government and University or otherwise the State Government would pay for the Teachers, which the petitioners cannot get rid of. The Hon''ble Apex Court also called upon University to explain as to why it insisted that the minimum number of students should be 24 and it was also directed to point out how it did not allow closure even assuming that 11 students only had applied for admission. This number of students as 11 students finds mention in paragraph 6 of the report of the Committee constituted to consider and recommend on application of respondent No. 3 College dated 28/1/1998 to close down Commerce Faculty. This report is dated 16/10/1998. It is in this background that above mentioned order dated 2/3/2001 came to be passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court.

It appears that thereafter when matter was taken up again, State Government communicated to Hon''ble Apex Court its readiness and willingness to accede to the request of College on closure of Commerce Department. The Hon''ble Apex Court directed affidavit to be filed by the State Government within four weeks and matter was directed to be listed after summer vacation. The matter then appeared before Hon''ble Apex Court on 14/9/2001 and on that date, in view of the fact that State Government had already acceded to the request of College Authorities to close down Commerce Department, the Hon''ble Apex Court dismissed the special leave petition. It is, therefore, apparent that the impugned order dated 3/5/2001 is on account of proceedings filed before Hon''ble Apex Court.

In reply affidavit filed before this Court, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have mentioned that from the year 1998 till termination of services of petitioners, they had paid amount of Rs. 10,25,000/- towards their salary by making arrangement of funds and their economic condition was bad.

In this situation, when petitioners have not filed Government Resolution dated 26/8/1999 initially along with petition or even after dismissal of present petition for want of prosecution on 3/11/2014, it is apparent that no cognizance of such grievance can be taken by this Court. However, we clarify that absorption or employment provided to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 in other Colleges shall not be affected by this adjudication. Similarly, if benefit of said Government Resolution dated 26/8/1999 is available to the petitioners to claim continuity or then absorption or employment, they are given liberty to make a representation in this respect to University with which their College is affiliated or to other competent Authority. If such representation is made by them within a period of six weeks from today, the concerned Authority shall evaluate it as per law and take decision upon it within next three months. Keeping all rival contentions about such representation or its consideration open and with these directions, we dispose of the writ petition. Rule is discharged. No costs.