Prabhakar Shivram Pawar (Dr.) vs Dr. Gune Ayurved Mahavidyalaya ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 861 Bom

JUDGMENT

B.H. Marlapalle, J.

1. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is seeking deemed date of promotion in the post of Reader under respondent No. 1 -- College with effect from 29-11-1986 and to quash and set aside the communication dated 5-2-1991 issued by the respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioner has passed Ayurvidya Parangat, a post Graduate qualification from Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth in the year 1983 and was appointed as Demonstrator in the year 1980 under the respondent No. 1, after he had acquired.the B.A.M.S. degree. He subsequently acquired M.D . Degree in Kaya Chikitsa in 1985 and also passed M.A. Sanskrit in 1986. Thereafter the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer vide order dated 22-3-1984, but with effect from 1-3-1984 under the respondent No. 1 College. This appointment was in the subject of Rog Nidan Kaya Chikitsak in the pay scale of Rs. 740-1150-1300-EB-50-1600/-.

3. The respondent No. 1 College released the advertisement to fill in the posts of Lecturers and Readers on 4-9-1986 and this was published in the local News Papers on 6-9-1986. As per the advertisement, in all 4 posts of Readers were sought to be filled in and one of them was in the department of Kaya Chikitsa, which was for general category. The petitioner claims that he submitted an application in response to the said advertisement and he was interviewed for the post of Reader in Kaya Chikitsa subject on 29-11-1986 by respondents No. 4 to 9, who made the Selection Committee. Though the interview proceeded satisfactorily, as claimed by the petitioner, he did not find himself selected though he was only the candidate, who was interviewed in response to the said advertisement. He submitted a representation on 14-10-1987 to the Minister for Health, Government of Maharashtra and kept on reminding, but there was no response and, therefore, he approached this Court.

4. The respondents have not filed any reply though the petition has been pending for about a decade or so. However, the petitioner has filed an affidavit-in-rejoinder and stated that from 21-7-1997 he has been appointed as Professor in the subject of Kaya Chikitsa under the respondent No. 1 - College vide order dated 29-1-2000. A copy of the appointment order is not on record, but there is a certificate issued by the respondent No. 1 which states that the petitioner has been appointed as Professor from 21-7-1997.

5. It is also admitted position that the Government of Maharashtra issued a Resolution on 29th September, 1983 prescribing qualifications and experiences for the posts of Lecturers, Readers and Professors in the Ayurved Colleges and as per the same, the petitioner met the requirement of qualifications for the post of Lecturer as well as Reader. However, his appointment as Lecturer made by the respondent No. 1 College with effect from 1-3-1984 was not approved by the State Government and as per the Certificate issued by the respondent No. 1 on 5-1-1991, the said decision of the State Government was on account of financial exigencies. This Certificate clearly states that from 1-3-1984 to 3-12-1986, the petitioner in fact worked as a Lecturer, but was paid salary as applicable to the post of Demonstrator. The letter dated 5-2-1991 addressed by the Ayurved Director, Maharashtra State, to the petitioner in response to his representation dated 15^1-1990, stated that the petitioner's appointment to the post of Lecturer was approved by the State Government only from 1-1-1987 and his request for the post of Reader could not be considered as he did not meet the requirement of experience when he was interviewed by the Selection Committee for the post on 29-114986.

6. The Government Resolution dated 29-11-1983, prescribed total teaching experience, of 5 years, out of which, 3 years ought to be teaching experience in the subject concerned. There is no dispute that the petitioner actually worked as Lecturer in 'Kaya Chikitsa' subject from 1-3-1984, though he was paid the salary as applicable to the post of Demonstrator for a period of about two years. He was appointed as a Demonstrator in the year 1980 itself. The advertisement released on 6-9-1986 had set out the requirement of experience for the post of Reader and Lecturer as under :

^^izikBd inklkBh dehr deh ikp o"ks f'kdfo.;kpk vuqHko] R;kiSdh O;k[;krk Eg.kwu 3 o"ks lacaf/kr fo"k;

f'kdfo.;kpk vuqHko vl.ks vko';d vkgs-

O;k[;krk inklkBh dehr deh rhu o"ks lacaf/kr fo"k; f'kdfo.;kpk vuqHko vl.ks vko';d-**

7. The respondent No. 1 had addressed a letter to the Directorate recommending the petitioner's case for the post of Reader and had stated that when the petitioner was interviewed on 29-11-1986 for the post of Reader he had about 7 years of teaching experience in the subject of 'Kaya Chikitsa' and, therefore, he was eligible for the post of Reader as he had more than 5 years of teaching experience in the concerned subject.

8. We are, therefore, required to examine a short point as to whether the petitioner fulfilled the requirements for the post of Reader on the date of the advertisement i.e. 4-9-1986 or on the date of interview i.e. 29-11-1986.

9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that service as Demonstrator right from 1980 is required to be taken into consideration to hold that the petitioner was teaching 'Kaya Chikitsa' subject and it is not necessary that he must hold the post of Lecturer for meeting the said requirement of 3 years experience. The subject advertisement clearly stated that 3 years experience as a Lecturer in the concerned subject was necessary. The petitioner did not meet this requirement as he was appointed in the post of Lecturer from 1-3-1984, even if we accept his contentions. The G. R. dated 29-9-1983 in regard to the experience for the posts of Readers and Lecturers read thus :

For the post of Reader total teaching experience of 5 years is necessary out of which 3 years teaching experience in the subject concerned; For the post of Lecturer 3 years teaching experience is necessary. The experience as a Demonstrator shall also be counted as teaching experience.

10. The petitioner's contention that his experience as Demonstrator is also required to be counted as teaching experience for the post of Reader does not impress us as the Government Resolution specifically stated that the experience as a Demonstrator shall be counted as teaching experience for the post of Lecturer and, therefore, 3 years teaching experience in the subject concerned, as prescribed for the post of Reader, ought to be treated to be an experience for the post of Lecturer and this was correctly translated into the advertisement which was released on 4-9-1986. Otherwise, even a demonstrator with five years experience may claim to be eligible for the post of Reader, which the rules do not contemplate.

11. We, therefore, hold that the petition did not meet the requirements of experience on the day the advertisement was released or on the date he was interviewed by the Selection Committee. However, we do hold that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer from 1-3-1984 and he met the educational qualification for the said post.

12. Admittedly, the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Professor from 21-7-1997 and as per the Government Resolution dated 9th June, 1988, the amended requirement of qualifications and experience for the post of Professor indicate that for being appointed to such a post, experience of not less than 4 years in the post of Reader is necessary. This clearly goes to show that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Reader during the pendency of this petition, else, he could not have been appointed to the post of Professor in the year 1997.

13. In the result, petition is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.