Writ Petition No. 347 of 2003 alongwith Civil Application No. 3354 of 2005 in Writ Petition No. 347 of 2003. Case: Dr. Rajeshkumar Prakashchandra Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.. Bombay High Court

Case Number:Writ Petition No. 347 of 2003 alongwith Civil Application No. 3354 of 2005 in Writ Petition No. 347 of 2003
Party Name:Dr. Rajeshkumar Prakashchandra Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: Mr. S.C. Naidu, a/w. Mr. Shardul Singh, i/b. Mr. Satendra Kumar, Advs. and For Respondents: Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar, a/w. Mr. Rakesh Pathak, Mr. Rajdeep Gade, i/b. M/s. Khandeparkar & Associates, Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate, i/b. Mr. Sarnath S.P., Adv.
Judges:R.D. Dhanuka, J.
Issue:Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 - Section 59; Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - Section 14(2); Constitution of India - Articles 226, 227
Judgement Date:June 06, 2017
Court:Bombay High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

  1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the judgment dated 16th October,2002 delivered by the learned Presiding Officer, Mumbai University and College Tribunal dismissing the appeal (62 of 2002) filed by the petitioner herein under section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:-

  2. Sometime in the year 1980, the petitioner passed B.A.M.S. from Mumbai University. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1982, the petitioner completed his internship from M.A.Podar Hospital, Worli and worked in the said hospital as a House Physician, House Surgeon and as a Registrar cum Tutor in Surgery for three years. The petitioner passed Ayurvidya Parangat from Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth, Pune a deemed University recognized by Central Council of Indian Medicine and University Grants Commission in the year 1986. It is the case of the petitioner that the said degree in Ayurvidya Parangat is a post graduate qualification in Shalya-Shalakya and Surgery. Sometime in the month of September 1986, the petitioner joined the respondent no.2 hospital as a Resident Medical Officer. The petitioner was selected as a lecturer and Head of the Department in Shalya-Shalakya at Bhaisaheb Sawant Ayurved Mahavidyalaya of the respondent no.2 sometime in the year 1988 and is examiner for M.D. and Ph.D. students for Pune and Banaras Hindu University.

  3. On or about 30th March,2000 the respondent no.2 college advertised various posts including for the purpose of reader in Shalayantra in Loksatta. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the said post along with several other candidates. The respondent no.2 called six candidates for the interview including the petitioner and the respondent no.5 on 17th June, 2000.

  4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.4 i.e. the Secretary, Medical Education & Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 021 had addressed a letter to the Director, Directorate of Ayurved, Worli on 23rd November, 2000 stating that if they had any objection regarding the selection committee, then they could approach the court. The Directorate of Ayurved was informed to go ahead with the recommendation of the selection committee. It is the case of the petitioner that none of the candidates including the respondent no.5 had made any complaint about the appointment of the selection committee.

  5. By a letter dated 1st December,2000 issued by the respondent no.2, the petitioner was selected and offered the post of reader. Condition No.8 of the said letter of appointment provided that the petitioner should secure degree in M.D. within five years from the date of appointment. It is the case of the petitioner that the said condition was imposed in the letter of appointment in view of the fact that the Ayurvidya Parangat degree, Pune was not notified till that date in the Gazette as a post graduate degree and was awaiting publication.

  6. On 30th November,2000, the appointment of the petitioner to the post of the reader was approved by the Directorate of Ayurved. The said appointment was also approved by the University of Mumbai by its letter dated 4th September, 2001 and 11th October,2001. In the letter of approval issued by the University of Mumbai, it was recorded that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of reader as full time in Shalayantra was approved on probation basis on 1st December, 2000 subject to the condition that he will obtain M.D. degree within five years as per letter of Director, Directorate of Ayurved dated 30th November, 2000. The Registrar of the University of Mumbai directed the respondent no.2 to communicate the said decision to the petitioner and three other lecturers whose appointments were approved by the said letter. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik noted the said approval granted by the University of Mumbai in their records by letter dated 8th October,2001.

  7. Sometime in the year 2001, the respondent no.5 filed a writ petition (1025 of 2001) in this court inter alia challenging the appointment of the petitioner basically on the ground that the selection committee who had recommended the name of the petitioner to the said post of reader was not properly constituted. It is the case of the respondent no.5 that the said writ petition is dismissed by this court for want of prosecution.

  8. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had addressed a letter to the Central Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi to confirm the status of "Ayurvidya Parangat" degree. The Secretary of the Central Council of Indian Medicine vide its letter dated 19th April, 2001 clarified that the Ayurvidya Parangat examination of Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth was approved as a post graduate qualification and the same had been already sent by the Government of India for publication in the Government Gazette.

  9. On 11th October, 2001, Central Government published a notification in exercise of the power conferred on section 14(2) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and amended the second schedule to the said Act. The degree of 'Ayurvidya Parangat' obtained during the period 1942-1988 from Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth, Pune was recognized as a post graduate degree. The said entry was already entered at serial no.61 of the 2nd schedule. However, by the said notification the words and the figures "from 1942 to 1980" were substituted by the words and the figures "1942 to 1988". It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had already obtained a degree of Ayurvidya Parangat in June 1986 and was thus within the period approved by the Central Council of Indian Medicine.

  10. The Registrar, Maharashtra Council of Indian Medicine furnished a detail information of A.V.P.(Poona) qualification separately setting out the exact nature A.V.P.(Poona) qualification. It is stated in the said statement that the said degree Ayurvidya Parangat A.V.P.(Poona) was a post graduate qualification. A.V.P. of Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth Puna or its equivalent with A.M.M.S., L.I.M., L.A.M.S., G.F.A.M., D.S.A.C. etc. were the qualification for admission. In column 16 of the said statement, it was provided that the said qualification was recognized for registration by State Ayurvedic/Unani Board. In Column 17, various subjects taught for Ayurvidya Parangat were mentioned.

  11. The Joint Director of Ayurved addressed a letter dated 10th December,2001 to the respondent no.2 and referred to a letter dated 26th November,2001 of the Government stating that the selection of the petitioner was cancelled by the State Government and thus the salary difference paid to the petitioner from June 2000 should be recovered from the salary of the petitioner. The Directorate, Ayurved addressed a letter dated 14th December, 2001 and referred to the letter of the State Government dated 26th November,2001 and directed the respondent no.2 to take suitable steps in the matter. The respondent no.2 accordingly issued a letter dated 23rd March,2002 to the petitioner thereby reverting the petitioner from the post of the reader to the post of the lecturer.

  12. Being aggrieved by the said letter dated 23rd March 2002, the petitioner herein filed an appeal under section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The University of Mumbai, the Secretary, Medical Education & Research, Mantralaya, Mumbai, respondent no.2 herein and the respondent no.5 were impleaded as respondents to the said appeal. The respondents to the said appeal filed written statement before the University Tribunal. By an order and judgment dated 16th October,2002, the University Tribunal dismissed the said Appeal (62 of 2002) filed by the petitioner herein on various grounds.

  13. Being aggrieved by the said order and judgment dated 16th October,2002 delivered by the said University Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition inter alia praying for a writ of certiorari and has prayed that the said order dated 16th October,2002 passed by the said tribunal be quashed and set aside and to allow the petitioner to work on the post of the reader in terms of the appointment letter dated 1st December, 2000. The petitioner has also applied for a writ of certiorari and seeks a direction against the respondents to refund the salary to the petitioner, deducted for the period from 1st December 2000 to 23rd March 2002 during the period the petitioner had worked as a reader.

  14. This court while admitting this petition, on 26th July, 2006 did not grant any interim relief in favour of the petitioner on the ground that such a relief if granted would result in granting substantive relief sought in the petition.

  15. Insofar as respondent no.5 is concerned, it is his case that he acquired the qualification of B.A.M.S. from Shivaji University in the year 1983 and further acquired the post graduate degree qualification of Vachaspati/M.S.(Ayu) (Shalayatantra) from the University of Mumbai in the year 2000. The respondent no.5 was appointed to the post of demonstrator in the respondent no.2 college in September 1988 and was re-designated as lecturer w.e.f. 10th December 1990. The respondent no.5 was appointed to the post of Reader in the respondent no.2 college in December 2005. The respondent no.5 has been now promoted to the post of reader Associate Professor and would reach the age of superannuation in the year 2019. The respondent no.2 however has made it clear in the letter of appointment issued to the respondent no.5 that the said appointment was subject to the result of this writ petition since the same was pending final disposal when he was appointed to the post of reader.

  16. It is the case of the petitioner that by a letter dated 13th July, 2006, Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth confirmed to the petitioner that Ayurvidya Parangat is a post graduate degree and is recognized by the...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL