MRS.VANDANA W/O. NANDKISHORE KHEDIKAR Vs. RASHTRASANT TUKDOJI MAHARAJ NAGPUR UNIVERSITY & ORS.
LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-122
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: NAGPUR)
Decided on March 31,2017

Mrs.Vandana W/O. Nandkishore Khedikar Appellant
VERSUS
Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.P.DHARMADHIKARI,J. - (1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner questions order/communication dated 12.03.2015, issued by the Hon'ble Chancellor, Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University (Respondent no.2) refusing to intervene and entertain her complaint/petition under Section 76[7] of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1994 Act" for short) against the appointment of respondent no.3. The Deputy Secretary to government has communicated the decision stating that there was no justification found to interfere with the decision taken by the University Authorities in the matter of said selection and appointment.
(2.) Petition was listed before Division Bench of this Court on 02.03.2016, and came to be adjourned to 11.03.2016. On 11.03.2016, it came up before other Bench and the Bench directed Registry to verify whether petition needed to be placed before the learned Single Judge. On 16.03.2016, Registry pointed out that challenge was covered under Rule 18[3] of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1960 Rules" for short) and therefore, needed to be placed before the learned Single Judge. On 01.04.2016, the learned Single Judge issued notice. On 23.01.2017, the matter came up before the other Single Judge who directed the Registry to place the matter before Division Bench to find out whether the impugned order was a quasi judicial in nature or not ? The order of learned Single Judge dated 23.01.2017, reads as under : "By the order passed on 11.03.2016, the Division Bench directed the office to verify whether the petition would lie before the Single Judge. Accordingly, the office has endorsed that the impugned order is quasi-judicial order and the petition is placed before the Single Judge. In my view, considering the controversy in the petition, it would be appropriate that the Division Bench considers whether the impugned order/decision is quasi judicial for the purpose of Chapter XVII Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. Office to place the matter before the Division Bench for appropriate orders." Registry has therefore placed the matter before this Bench.
(3.) Accordingly we have heard learned counsel for the parties. Pleadings and prayers are perused with their assistance. They have taken us through provisions of Section 76 of the 1994 Act, as also the 1960 Rules. They have also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at (2015) 5 SCC 423 (Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others), a Division Bench order dated 03.08.2011 in Writ Petition No. 4065 of 2010 (Shri Shivaji Education Society, Amravati and another v. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and others) and a reported judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court reported at 2013 (6) All MR 741 (Dr. Shailaja Bhujangrao Wadikar v. The Hon'ble Chancellor and another).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.