Bombay High Court
Kirankumar Laxmanrao Bondar vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 6 June, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
2048.15WP
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2048 OF 2015
Dr. Kirankumar S/o Laxmanrao Bondar
Age : 41 years, Occ : Service,
R/o 69/A, Ramanand Nagar,
Pawadewadi Naka, Nanded,
Tq. and Dist. Nanded. ..PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1.
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Principal Secretary
Higher and Technical Education
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director of Higher Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The Joint Director,
Higher Education, Nanded Region,
Govt. Polytechnic College Area,
Nanded, Dist. Nanded.
4. The Swami Ramanand Teerth,
Marathwada University Nanded,
Dist. Nanded
Through its Registrar
5. The Nanded Education Soceity's
Science College, Nanded
Through its Principal. ..RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V.M. Chate
AGP for Respondent/State :Mr. S.B. Yawalkar
Advocate for Respondent no.4: Mr. Y.V. Kakade
Advocate for Respondent no.5 : Mr. S.V. Natu
....
::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2016 00:06:06 :::
2048.15WP
2
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
`
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : May 3, 2016
PRONOUNCED ON : June 6, 2016
...
JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J)
This Petition takes exception to the
decision dated 6th September, 2014 taken by
the Selection Committee, the communication
dated 25-28th January, 2015 and also seeks
directions to Respondent no.4 to issue
approval to the appointment of the petitioner
as Professor by direct recruitment/deputation
on 6th September, 2014 in Respondent no.5 -
college.
2. The petitioner possesses degree of
M.Sc. Mathematics and also has been awarded
Ph.D. in mathematics by Respondent no.4 -
university. It appears that respondent no.5 -
college invited applications from the
eligible candidates for appointment to the
post of Professor. It appears that three
posts were advertised. Out of three posts,
two posts were to be filled up from the
category of Associate Professors by promotion
and one by direct recruitment. The allotment
of posts, by promotion and direct
2048.15WP
recruitment, was in the ratio of 75 and 25
respectively. The petitioner is serving with
Respondent no.5 - college as Assistant
Professor. He filed application for the
appointment on the post of Professor. The
petitioner was interviewed by the Selection
Committee, duly constituted by the University
as per the University Grants Commissions
Regulations. After selection, the candidature
of the candidates by promotion from category
of Associates Professors was accepted,
however, the petitioner's candidature for the
post of Professor was rejected on the ground
that the petitioner did not possess the
minimum requirements to be qualified, as per
the norms, for deputation (Internal).
3. The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner invited our attention to the
letter/notification dated 31st December, 2008
issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of
India in the Ministry of Human Resource
Department and Department of Higher Education
addressed to the Secretary, University Grants
Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New
Delhi. According to the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner
possesses requisite qualification for the
2048.15WP
post of Professor. He submits that the
relevant Regulation governing the field is
6.5.0 of the Regulations published by the
University Grants Commission on 30th June,
2010. The said Regulation provides that one-
fourth (25%) of the posts of Professors in
Under Graduate Colleges shall be directly
recruited or filled up by deputation from
amongst eligible teachers and the remaining
three-fourth (75%) of posts shall be filled
up by CAS promotion from amongst eligible
Associate Professors of the relevant
departments of the Under Graduate College. In
his submission, while appointing one-fourth
posts of Professors directly from amongst
eligible teachers, who possess the
qualifications laid down in the said
Regulation are entitled to be considered for
the posts of Professors from 25% quota of
direct recruitment. The learned counsel
invites our attention to sub-section (34) of
Section 2 of the Maharashtra Universities
Act, 1994, and submits that the Teacher means
full-time approved professor, associate
professor, assistant professor, reader,
lecturer, librarian, [principal, deputy or
assistant librarian and documentation officer
in the university, and college librarian],
2048.15WP
Director or Instructor of physical education
in any university department, conducted,
affiliated or autonomous college, autonomous
institution or department or recognised
institution in the university.
4. Therefore, according to the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, when
the performance of the petitioner was
assessed by two members, out of seven members
of the Selection Committee and the petitioner
secured 87 and 85 marks, and all these
Committee members signed the report of the
Selection Committee, Respondent no.4 ought to
have granted approval to the petitioner for
the post of Professor. He further submits
that the Government Resolution dated 30th
July, 2010 issued by the Higher and Technical
Education Department is being misinterpreted
by the respondents. In fact, the Regulations
framed by University Grants Commission on 10 th
June, 2010 have been accepted by the State
Government by issuing the Resolution dated
15th February, 2011 in the Higher and
Technical Education Department, Government of
Maharashtra. Therefore, relying upon the
pleadings in the Petition, annexures thereto,
rejoinder affidavit and relevant provisions
2048.15WP
of the Regulations and also provisions of the
Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the Petition deserves to be
allowed.
5. On the other hand, the learned
A.G.P. and the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent nos. 4 and 5, relying upon the
affidavits-in-reply submits that the
petitioner, who is serving as Assistant
Professor is not entitled to be considered
for the post of Professor. The Government
Resolution dated 30th July, 2010 provided that
ten per cent of the number of sanctioned
posts of Associate Professors in an Under
Graduate College shall be that of Professors
and shall be subject to the same criterion
for selection/appointment as that of
Professors in Universities, provided that
there shall not be more than one post of
Professor in each Department; and provided
further that one-fourth (25%) of the posts of
Professor in UG Colleges shall be directly
recruited or filled up by deputation from
amongst eligible teachers and the remaining
three-fourth (75%) of posts of Professors
shall be filled up by promotion from among
2048.15WP
eligible Associate Professors of the relevant
department of the Under Graduate college.
Identification of posts of Professor in an
Under Graduate College for being filled up
through direct recruitment/deputation shall
be within the competence of the University
acting in consultation with the College.
The learned A.G.P. submits that for the
direct recruitment, Respondent no.5 was
supposed to advertise the post by calling
applications from the eligible candidates and
also verify the roster point from B.C. Cell
so as to fill up the posts from the reserved
categories in case there existed backlog.
However Respondent no.5 has not followed
relevant criteria, which is required to be
followed while filling up the posts by direct
recruitment, such as issuing advertisement,
calling applications from the eligible
candidates nor the Management has verified
the roster point from the B.C. cell so as to
fill up the said posts.
6. We have considered the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, the learned A.G.P. appearing
for the Respondent/State and the learned
counsel appearing for Respondent nos. 4 and
2048.15WP
5. With their able assistance, we have
perused the pleadings in the Petition,
annexures thereto and all other documents
placed on record. It is true that the
petitioner applied for the post of Professor.
The petitioner at the relevant time was
working as Assistant Professor. The
petitioner possesses the qualification
required for the post of Professor. He has
also published the research papers. However,
he is non-suited only on the ground that
being Assistant Professor, he cannot be
directly considered for the appointment to
the post of Professor. It is true that for
the present case, relevant Regulation is
6.5.0. The said Regulation provides for
appointment of Professors in Under Graduate
and Post Graduate Colleges. The said
Regulation provides that the ten percent of
the number of the posts of Associate
Professors in an Under Graduate College shall
be that of Professors and shall be subject to
the same criterion for selection/appointment
as that of Professors in Universities,
provided that there shall be no more than one
post of Professor in each Department. It also
provides further that one-fourth (25%) of the
posts of Professors in Under Graduate
2048.15WP
Colleges shall be directly recruited or
filled up by deputation from amongst eligible
teachers and the remaining three-fourth (75%)
of posts shall be filled up by CAS promotion
from amongst eligible Associate Professors of
the relevant department of the Under Graduate
College.
7. igHowever, the Government of
Maharashtra has issued Resolution on 30th
July, 2010 in its Higher and Technical
Education Department, Mantralaya Mumbai. The
relevant portion of the said Government
Resolution reads thus :-
"5. Considering all relevant facts
in connection with the aforesaid
subject, Government issues the
following orders.
i) There shall be only one post of
Professor in any department of an
affiliated college. The number of
such posts of Professors shall be
10% of the sanctioned strength of
Associate Professors in the
concerned College, 25% of the posts
of Professor in each college shall
2048.15WP
be filled up through direct
recruitment or by deputation
(including internal deputation) and
the remaining 75% of the posts shall
be filled up by merit promotion from
among the eligible Associate
Professors of the relevant
departments of the College. While
fixing up the number of posts of
Professor in a college for filling
up by merit promotion or by direct
recruitment/deputation, if the
respective number is not an integer,
the same shall be rounded off to the
next higher integer."
8. In the aforesaid Government
Resolution, nowhere it is mentioned that 25%
of the posts of Professors in each college
shall be filled up through direct recruitment
from amongst eligible teachers. It provides
that both 25% and 10% as amongst the eligible
Associate Professors of the relevant
departments of the College. It is true that
by Government Resolution dated 15th February,
2011 issued by Higher and Technical Education
Department, the Government of Maharashtra has
decided to accept most of the provisions in
2048.15WP
the Regulations, however, in the said
Government Resolution at Sr. no.11, there is
reference of Regulation no.6.5.0. It appears
that the said Regulation is not accepted as
it is and so far the said Regulation is
concerned, it is observed thus :-
11- ifj-dz-6-5-0 ;k lanHkkZr 'kklu fu.kZ; dz-,ulhth&[email protected]¼ [email protected]½
ig fof'k&1 fn-30 tqyS] 2010 vUo;s fuxZfer dsysys vkns'k
ykxw jkgrhy
12- ifj-dz-6-6-0 ;k ifjPNsnkrhy loZ miifjPNsn Eg.kts 6-6-0 rs 6-6-5
;sFkhy loZ ckch t'kkP;k r'kk ykxw dj.;kr ;sr vkgsr-
9. Therefore, it follows from the
aforementioned Government Resolution that the
Government of Maharashtra has not accepted
the said Regulation no. 6.5.0. as it is.
Therefore, while filing up 25% posts directly
the word `eligible teachers' is not mentioned
in the Government Resolution dated 30th July,
2010. The said Resolution also mentions in
clause 5(vii) that all the Universities
concerned and their affiliated Colleges shall
expeditiously amend their Statutes and
Ordinance as may be necessary in connection
with the appointment of Professors and Heads
2048.15WP
of Departments in terms of this Resolution.
10. In the light of discussion
hereinabove, there is anomalous situation, in
as much as, in the University Regulations,
the source of appointment to the post of
Professors from 25% directly, the word
`eligible teachers' is mentioned and the
Government Resolution dated 10th June, 2010
contemplates that appointments on the post of
Professors, either directly or by promotion
should be from the Associate Professors.
Therefore, we are unable to persuade ourself
to give any directions to the Respondents, as
sought by the petitioner in the present Writ
petition. Hence the Petition stands rejected.
(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
SGA
