WRIT PETITION NO. 3843 OF 2019

24th January 2020

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. Deoul Pathak
Respondent Counsel: Mr. P. D. Meghe Mr. A. A. Naik Ms. T. Khan

JUDGEMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the rival parties.

2. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 16.02.2019 passed by the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur (for short “Tribunal”), whereby an application for amendment of the appeal memo has been only partly allowed and the petitioner is aggrieved by refusal of the Tribunal for permission to amend the appeal memo in terms of the prayers made in the application.

3. The petitioner has filed appeal before the Tribunal raising a grievance about the termination of his service. The background of the present case is that when the grievance arose for the petitioner against the respondents, the Tribunal did not have a Presiding Officer. Therefore, he was constrained to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No.840/2018.

4. The said writ petition was disposed of with an interim order passed in favour of the petitioner. On challenge raised by the respondent to that interim order, the same was modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the tribunal was requested to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

5. In the meanwhile, the impugned order was passed partly allowing the application for amendment, which was made subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition, wherein notices were issued and interim stay was granted by order dated 14.08.2019.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to the application for amendment moved before the Tribunal. It was submitted that typographical errors were sought to be corrected and the petitioner sought to place on record the sequence of events pertaining to the necessity of filing of writ petition before this Court in absence of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and consequent proceeding before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner also desired to place on record certain legal submissions by placing reliance on the certain Regulations of the University Grants Commission.

7. By the impugned order the Tribunal has only partly allowed the application, thereby permitting the petitioner to replace first sentence in Ground III and to amend prayer clause 4. As regards rest of the amendment, the Tribunal has refused to grant the same and at the same time it has directed that the proposed amendment at paragraph nos.12A to 12D be placed on record by way of pursis before the Tribunal as a matter of information.

8. The approach adopted by the Tribunal appears to be strange because on the one hand the application for amending the appeal memo in terms of paragraph nos.12A to 12D was refused and on the other hand the petitioner was directed to place the said paragraphs by way of information by filing pursis.

9. On perusal of the application for amendment filed by the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner is seeking to raise certain contentions that may be germane to the controversy between the parties, subject to the rights of respondents to deny the same. The Tribunal ought not to have refused permission to amend the appeal memo as sought by the petitioner herein.

10. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application for amendment filed by the petitioner is allowed in terms of prayer made therein. Consequential amendment be carried out by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today. Thereafter, the respondents may file their reply, including their response to the amended appeal within a period of four weeks after the amendment is carried out.

11. The Tribunal is requested to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four months from today.

12. Rule is made absolute in above terms, no order as to costs.