wp1213.09.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1213/2009
PETITIONER: Madhuri Madhukar Deshmukh,
Resident of Gadge Nagar, Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Joint Director of Higher Education,
Government of Maharashtra, Amravati Division,
Amravati.
3. Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Amravati,
Through its Registrar.
(Amendment carried out as per leave granted
By order dated 21.11.09).
4. Shri Shivaji Arts, Science & Commerce College
through its Principal, Akot District Akola.
5. University Grants Commission
Through its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for petitioner
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2
Shri A.S. Kilor, Advocate for respondent no.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 24.02.2017 ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 00:34:21 ::: wp1213.09.odt 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.)
1. The petitioner has invoked extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and sought relief against the respondents, specially the respondent no.3 - Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Amravati, through its Registrar, seeking approval on regular basis to her services from the date of her appointment as a Librarian in the respondent no.4 - Shri Shivaji Arts, Science and Commerce College, Akola. The consequential relief is also sought by her that she is entitled for pension and regularization on the post which she is holding along with all consequential benefits. Her claim is chiefly based on the communication dated 19.8.2008 issued by the respondent no.5 - University Grants Commission, which is available at page 48 of the compilation of this writ petition, which states that the candidates who are already registered for M. Phil. and complete the same by 30 th June, 2009 shall be exempted from NET/SET for undergraduate training.
2. We have heard Shri Anand Parchure, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.S. Fulzele, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Shri A.S. Kilor, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.4. Though the respondent nos.3 and 5 were duly served, they chose not to remain present. ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 00:34:21 :::
wp1213.09.odt 3
3. At the relevant time, the petitioner was holding qualification of M.A. (Political Science) and Master of Library Science.
4. The respondent no.4 issued an advertisement for filling the post of Librarian. By the said advertisement, the fully qualified candidates were asked to attend interview in the College along with their original testimonials on 31.3.2003.
5. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted her candidature and attended the interview. The petitioner was found to be eligible to the post of Librarian. The Principal of the respondent no.4 - College vide appointment order dated 21.4.2003 informed the petitioner that she is appointed as a full time librarian on a probation for a period of two years.
On getting such appointment, the petitioner attended the duties and started discharging her duties. However, on 15.11.2003 a communication addressed to the respondent no.4 by the respondent no.3 which was also given to the petitioner by which it was informed that the proposal regarding appointment of the petitioner is not approved since she is not qualified as per the University Grants Commission norms since she has not cleared NET/SET examination.
6. That gives rise to the petitioner to approach this Court by filing a writ petition. The same was registered as Writ Petition ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 00:34:21 ::: wp1213.09.odt 4 No.4983/2003 and the Division Bench of this Court on 10.3.2005 directed the respondent no.4 - College to continue the petitioner as a Librarian, subject to the exemption granted by the University Grants Commission. It was also directed by this Court to the respondent no.4 - College to send the proposal for provisional approval of the petitioner's services to the respondent nos.2 and 3 and it was directed that they should consider it favourably.
7. In view of the directions given by this Court as stated above, the petitioner continued her services with the respondent no.4 - College and the University granted provisional approval to the appointment of the petitioner. By an order dated 27.4.2007, the University Grants Commission also granted exemption in favour of the petitioner with certain condition.
8. The petitioner is in continuous service and discharging her duties as a Librarian from the date of her appointment itself.
9. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner acquired M.Phil. qualification in the month of March, 2009.
10. The issue that the candidates who acquired M.Phil. qualification prior to 1.7.2009 are not required to clear NET/SET examination is not res integra. This Court in various decisions has ruled that the candidates who acquired the M.Phil qualification prior to ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 00:34:21 ::: wp1213.09.odt 5 1.7.2009 are not required to clear NET/SET examination. The learned Additional Government Pleader did not dispute this position.
11. In the present case, the petitioner acquired M.Phil qualification in March, 2009. The petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement dated 30.3.2003 was holding the other qualification to hold the post of Librarian, except NET/SET. The petitioner, therefore, in our view, is entitled to have right to get approval from the respondent no.3 as a Librarian. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition needs to be allowed and the Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i) and (ii-a).
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 00:34:21 :::