CHATRAPATISHIVAJI MAHAVIDHYALAYA Vs. MANSHING DHONDIBA SHIOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is on weekly board since last two weeks when it's turn came it is called out today at 2. 15 p. m. Shri S. M. Kulkarni, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner opened the case and has made his elaborate submissions and he concluded his submissions at 4 p. m. As the other side was called to answer the point raised by shri Kulkarni, though there are two advocates on record, none present. Shri Ram Deshpande, learned advocate instructed by Shri S. C. Bora, informed that the respondent Mansing has taken away the papers from shri Bora, advocate who filed his V. P. initially and accordingly, Shri Bora, has handed over all the papers to the respondent. Thereupon then Shri deshpande, or for that purpose Shri Bora, advocate are not in position to reply the contention. Shri S. B. Talekar, has filed his V. P. Today, when the otherside is called upon, Shir S. A. Kulkarni, who is present in the Court, holding for Shri Talekar, till the arguments of Mr. S. M. Kulkarni, is concluded has not even remotely suggested that Shri Talekar, learned advocate on record is not available to argue the matter. Shri S. A. Kulkarni, has also expressed his inability to make any submissions in the matter. Shri Kulkarni, learned advocate fairly stated that the brief is not traceable in his office. I have seen that leave note is filed today only by Shri Talekar. In view of the provisions of Schedule 7 Rule 7 and 7a, of the Bombay high Court Appellate Side Rules, the leave notes are not applicable to the matters which are on board. If any advocate is not able to attend the court, he has to make arrangement by instructing another lawyer to work out the matter. As this matter is on board since last two weeks, if advocate on record was required to go out of Aurangabad, a courtesy demands that request should have been made well in advance for seeking short adjournment but it appears that an unhealthy practice has been followed by the members of the Bar by filing leave notes at the 11th hour, only to see that the matters which are on board should not be heard on that day. Which should be strongly deprecated. This does not mean that if the advocate is really in difficulty to attend the Court, at least, he should have requested his colleagues to seek an adjournment of the matter well in advance. Shri S. M. Kulkarni, opened the arguments and both the learned advocates were to mention the matter were sitting in the Court throughout but they even not hinted that they are not in a position to argue the matter. This causes inconvenience to the Court and to shri S. M. Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner and his client who is present in the Court. I hope and trust that there may not be any other occasion for this Court to make such observation. The Court expect the members of the Bar to follow the Appellate Side Rules strictly but when I saw leave note, have note of Shri Talekar, is filed today. If he has to leave Aurangabad for some personal work, at least he should made some arrangement to mention the matter and request for short adjournment well in advance. Be as it may, as the Court's time is over the matter will be continued at 2. 15 p. m. on Monday. All this being stated by me, because Hon'ble the chief Justice looking to the pendency of old matters has fixed the roster to the effect that all old final hearing matters to be taken in the afternoon session. So that some old matters could be disposed of. This Writ Petition was filed on 8. 1. 1990 and is pending for final hearing in this Court for 15 years and if there is no active cooperation from the Bar, it will be very difficult for the Court to dispose of the old matters. On Monday i. e. 11th july, 2005, Shri Talekar, learned advocate appeared and tendered his apology for not attending the matter on 8. 7. 2005 and he prayed that if opportunity is given to him to make submission in reply to Shri S. M. Kulkarni, learned advocate. Accepting the apology, though I had started dictating the order, i deferred it and permitted Shri Talekar, advocate to make submissions; he also assured that such things will not happen again. Thus 1 permitted shri Talekar, to make his submissions and he made elaborate submissions, which will be referred. Dt. 12. 7. 2005

(2.) BY this Writ Petition the respondents in the appeal before the College tribunal have challenged the judgment and order dated 13th October, 1989 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 and directing the management to reinstate the respondent to the post which he was holding at the time of termination of his service. The parties to this proceeding will be referred to as appellant and respondent respectively.

(3.) BEFORE adverting to the rival contentions advanced by the learned cousel, few aspects are required to be noted. The learned Presiding Officer, Pune/shivaji College University tribunal, Pune by the order dated 13th October 1989 allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. The respondents filed this Writ Petition in this Court on 8. 1. 1990. The writ petition was taken up for motion hearing and the division Bench of this Court rejected the petition summarily. The respondent feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal, approached the apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5133/1999. The apex Court on 17. 4. 1990 passed the following order: