Bombay High Court
Dr. Pramod S/O Govindrao Yeole vs The State Of Maha. Through ... on 7 June, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp6376.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6376 OF 2015
Dr. Pramod s/o Govindrao Yeole,
aged about 56 years, occupation :
service, The Pro-Vice Chancellor,
Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Civil Lines,
Nagpur. ig ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) The State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Department of Higher
and Technical Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2) The Director of Higher Education,
State of Maharashtra, Central
Building, Pune-1.
3) The Joint Director of Higher
Education, State of Maharashtra,
Nagpur Division, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
4) Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, through its
Registrar, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
5) Deleted. ... Respondents
-----------------
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:33:46 :::
2 wp6376.15
Shri N.R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.4.
----------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : JUNE 7, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally with consent of learned Counsel for the
parties.
2) The petitioner, who has worked as Professor in
a private unaided College recognized by respondent
no.4 University, AICTE as also State Government, has
been appointed as Pro-Vice Chancellor of respondent
no.4 University vide order dated 29/6/2015. The
appointment order is issued by Hon'ble Chancellor in
exercise of powers under Section 13(1) of the
Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. At that juncture,
3 wp6376.15
petitioner was drawing wages of Rs.69,560/- plus grade
pay of Rs.10,000/- in pay band of Rs.37,400 - 67000/-
with grade pay of Rs.10,000/-. After he reported as
Pro-Vice Chancellor, his pay has been fixed at
Rs.37,400/-, i.e. at the beginning of pay band with
grade pay of Rs.10,000/-.
3)
Adv. Kulkarni appearing for petitioner submits
that earlier service of the petitioner, which otherwise
has been recognized as valid for the purpose of
counting his experience of 15 years, which is must for
the post of Pro-Vice Chancellor, has been ignored after
his appointment as Pro-Vice Chancellor. The fixation is
arbitrary. He further submits that petitioner has put in
22 years of service and his entire service has been
recognised as valid for career advancement scheme.
Thus, he has been given benefit of that service on
the post of Lecturer and Reader and, therefore, for the
purpose of pay fixation as Pro Vice Chancellor, refusal to
recognise that service is unsustainable. He invites our
4 wp6376.15
attention to Government Resolution dated 11/2/1994 to
urge that previous service of the petitioner ought to
have been considered as laid down therein. The
University Grants Commission's notification dated
30/6/2010 has also been relied upon by him to show
that it contains identical Clauses. The said notification
dated 30/6/2010 is accepted by the State Government
vide its Resolution dated 15/2/2011. He submits that
all these aspects are lost sight of and only because pay
of the petitioner while working in private unaided
College has not been fixed by his office, respondent
no.3 Joint Director of Higher Education has refused to
recognize the previous experience and service of the
petitioner.
4) The contentions of Adv. Kulkarni are supported
by Adv. Patil, who appears for respondent no.4
University.
5) This Court has not issued any notice to office
5 wp6376.15
of Hon'ble Chancellor, who has been added as
respondent no.5. In this situation, we find that as no
relief is claimed against office of Chancellor, it is not
necessary to continue that office as respondent no.5.
Respondent no.5 is accordingly deleted. Necessary
amendment be carried out forthwith.
6) Shri
Patil, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 3, is relying upon reply-
affidavit. He submits that employment with private
unaided College is not controlled in any way by
respondent no.3 or by respondent no.2 and hence,
respondents have rightly refused to look into the
previous service. The learned Assistant Government
Pleader submits that though that service may have
been recognised for the purpose of calculating
experience of petitioner, that does not mean that it
needs to be looked into also for the purpose of pay
fixation. The learned Assistant Government Pleader
also places reliance upon Government Resolution dated
6 wp6376.15
11/2/1994 to state that unless and until all norms
stipulated therein are fulfilled, the previous service and
experience with private unaided College cannot be
looked into.
7) With the assistance of respective Counsel for
the parties, we have perused records. From averments
in paragraph 3 of the reply-affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent nos.1 to 3, it is clear that only because the
petitioner has worked earlier with private unaided
College, his service with that College has been
overlooked. The reliance in reply affidavit is on
Government Resolution dated 11/2/1994. Perusal of
that Government Resolution shows that previous
service without any break as a Lecturer or equivalent in
University, College, National Laboratory or other
Scientific Organization is to be counted for placement
of Lecturer in Senior Scale/Selection grade. The
computation of such service is permissible, if five norms
stipulated therein are satisfied. Clause 2 thereof
7 wp6376.15
further stipulates that services are to be taken into
consideration for the purpose of placement in senior
grade and selection grade only and not for any other
purpose. As per Clause 3, no distinction can be made
with respect to nature of Management of the Institution
where previous service was rendered, i.e. whether
previous Management was private or it was Local Body
or College run by Government if five norms stipulated
therein are satisfied. The University Grants
Commission's notification dated 30/6/2010 vide
Clause 10 again stipulates the same.
8) We, therefore, find that in the present matter,
only because petitioner has rendered his service in
private unaided College, the benefit of that service has
been denied to him while effecting his pay fixation as
Pro-Vice Chancellor. Perusal of Government Resolution
dated 6/2/2006 issued by Higher and Technical
Education Department of State Government vide
Clause 4 again mentions that for the purpose of career
8 wp6376.15
advancement scheme, the service rendered in private
unaided College subject to satisfying five norms as
stipulated in that Clause can be looked into.
9) In the present matter, it is not necessary for us
to delve more into these norms or controversy. The
reply affidavit ig filed by respondent nos.1 to 3
categorically stipulates that as petitioner has worked in
private unaided College, experience and service put in
by him with that College cannot be looked into for the
purpose of pay fixation.
10) Thus, a candidate like petitioner working in
aided College could have been given benefit of service
put in by him. Here reply affidavit does not show that
petitioner does not fulfill any of the five norms
mentioned in the University Grants Commission's
notification dated 30/6/2010 or Government Resolution
dated 11/2/1994. It is not very clear whether case of
the petitioner has been examined from that point of
9 wp6376.15
view.
11) Hence, denial of benefit of previous service for
the purpose of fixing his salary as Pro-Vice Chancellor
by the office of respondent no.3 is incorrect. We
accordingly direct the said Office to look into that
service and treat it as valid for the purpose of fixation if
the five norms mentioned in the above mentioned
University Grants Commission's notification or
Government Resolution dated 11/2/1994 are satisfied.
The respondent no.3 shall complete scrutiny in
this respect within two months from today, if necessary,
after extending opportunity of hearing to petitioner.
12) Leaving all rival contentions in that respect
open, with above directions, we dispose of the petition.
No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
