KU. SUNANDA TANBAJI SONTAKKE Vs. THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
LAWS(BOM)-2017-1-7
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on January 04,2017

Ku. Sunanda Tanbaji Sontakke Appellant
VERSUS
The Grievance Committee Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) None appeared for the petitioner and the respondents when the matter was called out in the morning session. The matter was kept back. In the afternoon session again none appeared for the parties. Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate who was present in the Court, was requested to assist the Court. With the assistance of Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate I have examined the documents placed on record of the petition.
(2.) The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Grievances Committee given as per Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (for short "Act of 1994"). The claim of the petitioner before the Grievances Committee was that she had worked as a Contributory Lecturer in Sociology in the academic session 1997 - 1998 and then as a Contributory Lecturer in Home Economics in academic session 1998 - 1999, that the post of Lecturer in Home Economics was advertised on 12th May, 1999, the petitioner had submitted her application pursuant to which she was invited for interview, she was interviewed, however, giving a go-bye to her legitimate claim, respondent No.6 was appointed. The petitioner contended that the Selection Committee which conducted interviews was not constituted properly as per the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission on 24th December, 1998 and that the petitioner was having better qualifications and experience than respondent No.6.
(3.) Section 57 of the Act of 1994 provides that the Grievances Committee shall deal with the grievances of Teachers and other employees of the Universities, Colleges, Institutions and recognized Institutions. Section 2(34) of the Act of 1994 defines "Teacher". As per the definition, full-time approved professor, associate professor, assistant professor, reader, lecturer, librarian, principal, deputy or assistant librarian and documentation officer in the University, and college librarian, director or instructor of physical education in any university department, conducted, affiliated or autonomous college, autonomous institution or department or recognized institution in the university is considered as a "Teacher". The petitioner herself claimed that she was working as a Contributory Lecturer and, therefore not being a full-time approved teacher, she cannot be a "Teacher" within the meaning of Section 2(34) of the Act of 1994. Therefore, the petitioner could not have approached the Grievances Committee under Section 57 of the Act of 1994. Though the Grievances Committee has rejected the claim of the petitioner on merits, for the above reasons, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. ;


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