Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 7 (BOM)

Womens Education Society v. State of Maharashtra

2012-01-04

A.P.BHANGALE, P.B.MAJMUDAR

body2012
Judgment : P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. 1. Rule. The learned Government Pleader waives notice for the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Joint Director of Higher Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur dated 11/8/2011, by which the Joint Director refused to grant approval to petitioner No.3’s appointment on the ground that the said petitioner is not having experience from educational institution though petitioner no.3 is having more than three years’ experience of administration. The petitioner no.1 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is also a Public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Petitioner No.1 runs Educational Institution in the city of Nagpur. Petitioner No.2 – College is run by petitioner no.1 – Society. Petitioner No.3 applied for the post of Registrar to be appointed in the petitioner No.2 – College. Petitioner No.3 was interviewed and was found suitable for the said post and was accordingly selected for the post of Registrar in the petitioner no.2 – College. The Institution thereafter applied to the Department for granting approval to such appointment. The Joint Director of Higher Education by the impugned order dated 11/8/2011 refused to grant approval on the ground that petitioner no.3 is not possessing requisite experience in the educational institution and on the aforesaid ground, the approval is rejected. It is the said order which is impugned in this petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that the Joint Director has erred in rejecting the approval sent by the Institution as, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioner no.3 was having necessary experience of three years on administrative side. It is submitted that it is not the requirement of law that the candidates must have three years’ experience only in the educational institution. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.3 has worked as a Chartered Accountant and she is having wide administrative experience in the different institutions though not in educational institution. 5. At this stage, reference is required to be made to the requirements as per rules. The advertisement was issued by the Institution for the appointment as per the rules. 5. At this stage, reference is required to be made to the requirements as per rules. The advertisement was issued by the Institution for the appointment as per the rules. The contents of the advertisement reads as under “Administrative experience for not less than 3 years in similar capacity.” It is submitted by Mr.Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners that the administrative experience should be for three years on administrative side meaning thereby that if the candidate is served on the administrative side in a particular institution, the same is sufficient compliance with the requirement. The learned Government Pleader Shri Sambre submits that the Joint Director has taken such decision in view of the observations made by the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal No.N1/ 2004. It is submitted that in view of the same, the Joint Director has taken the view that the administrative experience should be only in the educational institution and not in any other institution. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides at length and we have gone through the various documents forming part of this petition. 7. It was a case wherein the said employee was removed from service. The said order was challenged by the employee before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the appointment of the said employee was not legal and valid one as appellant was taken on the basis of fraudulent documents. The Tribunal also found that the experience certificate produced by the said employee was false one. The Tribunal also found that the College has not issued the advertisement in the prescribed newspaper as per the rules. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the said employee. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was having three years’ administrative experience and therefore, she was qualified to be appointed as a Registrar. Considering the requirement as per advertisement, a candidate should have administrative experience for not less than three years in similar capacity meaning thereby that the candidate should have experience for three years’ in administrative capacity. In a given case, if the candidate is having three years’ teaching experience and is also having some administrative experience, it cannot be said that the candidate is having administrative experience of three years in similar capacity. In a given case, if the candidate is having three years’ teaching experience and is also having some administrative experience, it cannot be said that the candidate is having administrative experience of three years in similar capacity. The candidate should have experience on administrative side in a particular institution and not casual administrative experience while performing other duty. Since it is pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner no.3 that the petitioner had an experience on administrative side, as petitioner no.3 has completed successful three years’ service, the rejection of approval by the Joint Director on the ground that she should have administrative experience only in the educational institution, in our view, is not a correct decision as the candidate can have an experience on administrative side in any institution; whether it is educational institution or not. 8. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties that the Registrar is required to discharge the administrative function only and he is not concerned with any educational institution in any manner. It is pointed out that the duty of the Registrar is purely an administrative duty. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the impugned order is required to be set aside and the matter is required to be sent back to the Joint Director of Higher Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur for a fresh decision. The Joint Director may take a fresh decision and while taking the fresh decision, the fact that the petitioner is not having three years’ experience in educational institution but having three years’ experience on administrative side should not be taken as a valid ground. 9. In view of what is stated above, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Joint Director shall take an appropriate fresh decision after hearing the petitioners within a period of one month from today. The parties may act on an authenticated copy of this judgment. The learned Government Pleader to communicate the copy of this judgment to the Joint Director of Higher Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur so that he may take a decision within one month. No order as to costs.