1 wp 8751-2021+.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8751 OF 2021 Dr. Dadasaheb Devidasrao Kadam Age: 43 years, Occu: Service, R/o. C/o. Near Gajanan Mandir, Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli. …. Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary of Higher and Technical Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Joint Director of Higher Education, Nanded Region, Nanded. 3. The Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Nanded, Through its Registrar, Having Official Address at Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 4. The Secretary of Chhatrapati Shahu Shikshan Sanstha, Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli. 5. The Principal, Narayanrao Waghmare Mahavidyalaya Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8760 OF 2021 2026:BHC-AUG:42560-DB 2 wp 8751-2021+.odt Sudhakar s/o Raosaheb Gadhe Age: 49 years, Occu: Service, R/o. C/o. Jagal, Near Gajanan Mandir, Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli. …. Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary of Higher and Technical Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Joint Director of Higher Education, Nanded Region, Nanded. 3. The Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Nanded, Through its Registrar, Having Official Address at Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 4. The Secretary of Chhatrapati Shahu Shikshan Sanstha, Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli. 5. The Principal, Narayanrao Waghmare Mahavidyalaya Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli. …. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 111 OF 2023 1. Chhatrapati Shahu Shikshan Sanstha, Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli. Through its President. 2. The Principal, Narayanrao Waghmare Mahavidyalaya Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, 3 wp 8751-2021+.odt Dist. Hingoli. …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. The Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Nanded, through Registrar, 2. The Deputy Registrar Academic (Approval) Division, Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Nanded. 3. Prakash s/o Sambhaji Waghmare Age: 51 years, Occu: Service as, Assistant Professor, History, R/o. Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli. …. Respondents Mr. Parth Shinde, Advocate h/f Mr G. A. Gadhe, Advocate for the petitioners in WP/8751/2021 and WP/8760/2021 and for Respondent No. 3 in WP/111/2023. Mr. A. R. Kale, Advocate for the Respondent/State in WP/8751/2021 and WP/8760/2021. Mr. U. S. Malte, Advocate for Respondent No.3 in WP/8751/2021 and WP/8760/2021 and Respondents No. 1 and 2 in WP/111/2023. Mr. N. B. Khandare Senior Advocate h/f Mr. A. G. Chavhan, Advocate for Respondents No. 4 and 5 in WP/8751/2021 and WP/8760/2021 and Petitioners in WP/111/2023. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ. Date on which reserved for order : 22nd July, 2026. Date on which order pronounced : 16th September, 2026. FINAL ORDER ( PER KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) :- 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Shinde for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 8751/2021 and 8760/2021, learned AGP 4 wp 8751-2021+.odt Mr. Kale for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, learned Advocate Mr. Malte for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Khandare, Senior Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The petitions are taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 8751/2021 and 8760/2021 have approached this Court challenging refusal of grant of benefits of CAS, whereas Writ Petition No. 111/2023 is by the institution challenging the order passed by the grievance committee granting approval for CAS proposal of respondent No. 3 - Assistant Professor. 3. Considering that the issue involved is common, all the petitions are taken up together for final disposal by consent of the parties. 4. In Writ Petition No. 8751/2021 and 8760/2021 the petitioners are working as Assistant Professors with the respondent No. 4 – Chhatrapati Shahu Shikshan Sanstha. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 111/2023 are Chhatrapati Shahu Shikshan Sanstha and its Principal. One Prakash Sambhaji Waghmare, Assistant Professor who is granted benefit of Career 5 wp 8751-2021+.odt Advancement Scheme (Hereinafter referred to as “CAS” for short) and approval by the University is under challenge in this petition 5. The petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Registrar of the University namely Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University in the cases of two petitioners wherein, the Registrar has refused to grant benefit of CAS. 6. The facts in short giving rise to the present petitions are as under: . In Writ Petition No. 8751/2021 the order under challenge is dated 22.07.2019 passed by the respondent No. 3 - Registrar. Initially the benefit of CAS was approved on 07.09.2018. The directions are now sought to grant benefit under CAS from 2nd stage to 3rd stage. It is the case that, in 2015 the petitioner became eligible to get first benefit of CAS. His proposal was submitted through proper channel on 23.04.2018. However, the petitioner received a communication that petitioner’s proposal is cancelled. It is further case that, for the period between April - 2013 to June-2013, the petitioner was prevented from signing the muster. Though they were continued on duty the 6 wp 8751-2021+.odt management was not co-operating with the University. The petitioner, therefore, was required to file Writ Petition No. 5609/2014. This Court in the said petition directed the University to adjudicate the grievance of the petitioners within four months. When the petitioner approached the grievance forum, no mechanism was available. The petitioner was therefore constrained to file one more Writ Petition No. 1561/2017 in this Court. The management had also filed a petition but that came to be dismissed. There was also a dispute about amount of HRA which was disputed by the management. The petitioner was therefore again required to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 14975/2017 alongwith two other teachers. This Court directed the Director of Higher and Technical Education Department to decide the petitioners’ grievance expeditiously. The Joint Director directed to submit the HRA proposal of the petitioner and other teachers for approval. Thus, on this background the petitioners’ case is that they are being harassed by the management unnecessarily and no proposal is sent for CAS. The facts in the Writ Petition No. 8760/2021 are almost similar. 7 wp 8751-2021+.odt 7. Learned advocate for the petitioners Mr. Shinde relied upon the judgment in the case of Dr. Silvia Noronha Vs. Goa University Rep. By its Registrar and Anr.1 It is submitted that the petitioners on completion of 10 years of service are entitled to get the benefits of first promotion notionally where no actual post is available. Thereafter, they are entitled to get the benefits of second promotion after completion of further 10 years. It is submitted that, however, by impugned communication the Registrar of the University rejected the proposals only on technical ground that the coram of the committee recommending proposal was not duly constituted and one of the members was not present. 8. Learned Advocate further submits that as per UGC directions the coram is required of (a) Principal or Acting Principal, (b) head of the concerned department from the College and (c) two subject experts in the concerned subject nominated by the Vice- Chancellor or Acting Vice-Chancellor from the University panel of experts. The coram of the committee shall be of three including one subject expert. It further provides that University nominee need not be present. He thus submits that, in the present case 1 Writ Petition No.791 of 2011 (High Court of Bombay at Goa) 8 wp 8751-2021+.odt the, committee’s proposal was not signed by the Principal and it is only on that the proposals came to be rejected. He thus prays for setting aside the impugned communication. 9. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Khandare for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 vehemently argued that in the committee to send proposal, Principal is the necessary person. At the relevant time of sending the proposal dated 23.04.2018, no Principal was in the office as earlier Principal stood retired on 31.08.2018. The said Principal was therefore not available in the meetings dated 06.09.2018 and 07.09.2018. Since Principal himself was not there as President of the committee the proposal could not have been considered. The Registrar therefore has rightly rejected the proposals. So far as Writ Petition No. 111/2023 is concerned, he submits that, in two cases the Registrar has rightly considered that there was no proper proposal submitted by the College. However, on the other hand he accepted the proposal only in one case of respondent No. 3. He thus submits that the communication dated 20.05.2022 and 06.07.2022 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. Learned Advocate Mr. Malte for respondent No. 3 submits 9 wp 8751-2021+.odt that, as per Rules the proposal must be sent by the committee formed in accordance with law. Since in the case of petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 8751/2021 and 8760/2021 the proposal was without signature of the Principal those were rightly not accepted by the University. So far as Writ Petition No. 111/2023 is concerned, he justifies the order. 11. Learned A.G.P. prays for passing appropriate order. 12. This Court has gone through the impugned orders passed by the Registrar. The only reason assigned while rejecting the proposals is that the proposal is not signed by the Principal as on the date of committee’s meeting i.e. 05.09.2018 and 06.09.2018. There was no regular Principal in the College. So far as eligibility etc. is concerned, this Court finds that there is no dispute. 13. In the case of Dr. Silvia Noronha Vs. Goa University Rep. By its Registrar and Anr. (supra), this Court at Goa considered the scheme of CAS for the University teachers. In that case the Court directed the College to send fresh proposal with direction to the University to consider the proposals. This Court deems it proper in the present case to adopt the same course of action. 10 wp 8751-2021+.odt 14. In that backdrop Writ Petition Nos. 8751/2021 and 8760/2021 stands allowed. The impugned order dated 22.07.2019 passed by the respondent No.3 - Registrar is quashed and set aside. The respondents No. 4 and 5 to forthwith send proposal for giving CAS benefits to the petitioners from the date on which they became entitled to get second benefit in the year 2018. The University thereafter within a period of two (2) weeks, if the petitioners are found otherwise eligible, to accept the proposal and issue necessary orders. 15. With this, the Writ Petition Nos. 8751/2021 and 8760/2021 stand allowed and disposed off. 16. Needless to say that, all the benefits be given to the petitioners right from the date on which they became eligible to get the second benefit of CAS. 17. In view of above, Writ Petition No. 111/2023 does not hold any merit, the same stands dismissed. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) P.S.B.