Bombay high court fines Mumbai University registrar for double-speak

Written By Rosy Sequeira | Updated:

The division bench of justices DK Deshmukh and ND Deshpande were hearing a petition filed by Gokhale Education Society, a trust which runs two colleges at Parel and another at Jawahar in Thane district.

Piqued at the contradictory letters issued by former Registrar of the University of Mumbai that resulted in holding up the appointment of principals to two colleges for over a year and half, the Bombay high court fined him Rs25,000.

The division bench of justices DK Deshmukh and ND Deshpande were hearing a petition filed by Gokhale Education Society, a trust which runs two colleges at Parel and another at Jawahar in Thane district.

The trust applied to the University to sanction their advertisements for two posts in the open category.

As registrar Vyankatramani in April 2009 asked the trust to seek a no-objection certificate from the joint director for higher education for advertising the posts of principals. In the same month, the joint director granted approval. In February Vyankatramani sought an explanation from the officer asking why he granted approval to the trust. The trust relied on HC and SC judgments, which had held that the policy of reservations would not be applicable to posts of principals, if the vacancies did not exceed two.

“The action of the university is high-handed and therefore, not only that letter (seeking an explanation) is liable to be set aside but the author of that letter viz. K Vyankatramani, the registrar, is also liable to be saddled with the exemplary cost,” wrote the judges in their October 7 order.

They added, “When the joint director has given his no objection, in our opinion, it was none of the business of the University to write a letter asking clarification from the joint director as to on what basis he has given no objection.”

When the judges asked the University's lawyer to explain the contradiction in Vyankatramani’s letters, the latter could not justify it. The judge quashed the letter issued to to the joint director and directed the University to give approval to the trust's advertisements.