Dr. Uttam Manik Jaybhaya vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4728 Bom

                                            1                       W.P.No.5384/13

                                        UNREPORTED




                                                                             
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT




                                                     
                                            BOMBAY

                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD.




                                                    
                               WRIT PETITION NO.5384 OF 2013.



              Dr.Uttam Manik Jaybhaya,




                                         
              Age 48 years, Occ.Service,
              R/o C/o R.M.Deshmukh,
                             
              Laxmi Niwas, Opp.Shri Ganesh
              High School, Nandigram Society,
              Nanded.                       ... Petitioner.
                            
                               Versus
      

              1.The State of Maharashtra
              through its Department
              of Higher and Technical
   



              Education, Mantralaya,
              Mumbai.

              2. Swami Ramanand Teerth





              Marathwada University,
              Nanded.

              3.Adarsha Shikshan Sanstha,
              Hingoli through its
              President Shri Eknathdada





              Gangaram Nilawar,
              C/o Adarsha Shikshan
              Society's Arts, Commerce
              and Science College,
              Hingoli.
              (Name of Respondent No.3
              is deleted as per Hon'ble
              Court's order dated
              10.9.2015)

              4. Adarsha Shikshan Society's




    ::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2016                     ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2016 00:14:03 :::
                                               2                      W.P.No.5384/13

              Arts, Commerce and Science
              College, Hingoli, through




                                                                             
              its Principal.

              5. Dr.Satish Ambadasrao Kulkarni,




                                                     
              Age major, Occ.Service,
              R/o C/o Adarsh Shikshan
              Society's Arts, Commerce
              and Science College, Hingoli.




                                                    
              6. Dr.Prashantkumar Panditrao Joshi,
              Age major, Occ.Service,
              R/o C/o Adarsh Shikshan Society's
              Arts, Commerce & Science




                                             
              College, Hingoli.             ... Respondents.

                              ig          ...

              Mr.S.S.Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner.
                            
              Mr.B.V.Virdhe, A.G.P. for the State.
              Mr.V.P.Latange, advocate for Respondent No.2.
              Mr.D.M.Shinde, advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and
              6.
                                       ...
      
   



                                       CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
                                               K.L.WADANE,JJ.

Date : 19.08.2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With

the consent of parties, taken up for final

hearing.

3. The applications were invited for the

post of Professor in Zoology in the Respondent

No.4 institution. The present petitioner and

Respondent No.6 along with other candidates

participated in the selection process. The

Respondent No.6 came to be selected and appointed

as Professor of Zoology with Respondent Nos.3 and

4 institution. The selection of Respondent No.6

is assailed in the present Writ Petition.

4.

Mr.Jadhavar, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the Selection Committee

constituted for selecting the Professor in

Zoology for the Respondent institution showed

undue favour to the Respondent No.6. The marks

were allotted to the Respondent No.6 in respect

of research papers that were never published in

the journals. The selection of Respondent No.6

was itself illegal. Even the marks allotted to

Respondent No.6 in objective assessment by the

members of the Selection Committee were

different. Large scale illegalities are

committed in the said selection process.

Ignoring all the para-meters for allotment of

marks, the Committee has allotted full marks to

the research work claimed by the Respondent No.6.

The inquiry was conducted by the University. The

University gave report in favour of the Selection

Committee. This Court appointed an Inquiry

Committee of subject experts to inquire into the

matter. The Committee appointed by this Court

inquired into the matter and observed that though

Respondent No.6 is allotted 48 marks for the

research papers, in fact, the Respondent No.6 was

entitled for only 15 marks. This shows that the

selection of Respondent No.6 was itself illegal.

According to the Committee, appointed by the

Court, one Dr.D.B.Bhure, stands at serial No.1,

this fact testifies that Respondent No.6 was

shown undue favour by Selection Committee. The

appointment of Respondent No.6 as such is per se

and ex-facie illegal. Such an illegal

appointment can not be protected. Objective

assessment has to be made. In such an event the

whole selection process requires to be cancelled

and fresh selection process be undertaken.

5. Mr.Latange, learned counsel appears for

Respondent No.2 University and submits that

University had conducted an inquiry and found the

selection process to be proper.

6. The learned counsel appearing for

Respondent Nos.5 and 6 submits that even as per

report submitted by the Committee appointed by

this Court, the petitioner stands at serial No.3

i.e. below Respondent No.6. As such petitioner

does not have right to assail the same.

7. We have considered the submissions

canvassed by learned counsel for respective

parties.

8. Considering the averments in the

petition and the allegations levelled that of

infirmities in the selection process, this Court

to eradicate any doubt appointed Committee of

subject experts to inquire into the matter. The

Committee appointed by this Court considered all

the documents, papers submitted by the respective

candidates during the course of the selection

process and has also conducted interviews of the

candidates. Upon considering all the relevant

aspects, the Committee has submitted the report

which is part of the record of this Court. As per

the Committee appointed by this Court, Dr.Bhure,

secures 217.43 points, Dr.P.P.Joshi (Respondent

No.6) secures 187.47 points and Dr.U.M.Jayabhaye

(petitioner) secures 178.87 points.

9. The marks in the selection process are

based on subjective satisfaction of the Committee

which certainly is formed on the objective

assessment. It was found that Respondent No.6

was given more marks for research papers.

However, in the end, the Committee has opined

that the petitioner would still stand at serial

No.3 and Respondent No.6 would be above the

petitioner in the allotment of marks also.

Dr.Bhure, who according to the Committee

appointed by this Court secures the highest marks

is not assailing the selection process nor is

making any complaint in that regard. The

petitioner may not have any ground to agitate

against Respondent No.6 as in the marks allotted

by the Selection Committee, the petitioner did

not stand a chance. In the inquiry conducted by

the University also, the petitioner did not stand

any chance and even according to the Inquiry

Report of the Committee appointed by this Court,

the petitioner is at the bottom and Respondent

No.6 is above the petitioner. It is not the case

of the petitioner that Respondent No.6 was

ineligible to be appointed. The only grievance

is about the allotment of marks and in each and

every inquiry, ig the petitioner is below the

Respondent No.6.

10. In light of that, the grievance raised

by the petitioner can not be considered. The

Writ Petition as such is dismissed. Rule

discharged. No costs.

                      Sd/-                                   Sd/-
                (K.L.WADANE,J.)                     (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)



              asp/office/wp5384.13