Dhairyasheelrao Dongar Patil vs State Of Maha & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 2898 Bom

                                       1                 WP 6515 of 2004

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         Writ Petition No. 6515 of 2004

     *       Dhairyasheelrao s/o Dongar Patil,
             Age 49 years,
             Occupation : Service,
             R/o 75, Jaihind Colony,
             "Shivner" Deopur, Dhule.          ..          Petitioner.

                      Versus

     1)      The State of Maharashtra,
             Through its Secretary,
             Higher & Technical Education
             Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

     2)      The Bar Council of India,
             through its Secretary
             Bhagwandas Road,
             Opposite Supreme Court of India,
             New Delhi.

     3)      The University Grants Commission,
             Through its Secretary,
             Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
             New Delhi 110 002.

     4)      The Bar Council of Maharashtra
             & Goa, Through its Secretary
             High Court Building Mumbai.

     5)      North Maharashtra University
             Through its Registrar, Jalgaon.

     6)      West Khandesh Dalit Shikshan
             Prasarak Mandal
             Through its Chairman
             Mahendra Ashok Nile
             Aged 42 years,
             Occupation: Social Work
             R/o Professor Colony, Deopur, Dhule.




::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017                ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:57:22 :::
                                         2                      WP 6515 of 2004

     7)      The Principal,
             Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar
             Memorial College of Law
             Deopur, Dhule.

     8)      The Joint Director of Education
             (Higher Grants) Jalgaon.                     .. Respondents.

                                        ----

     Shri. A.S. Kale, Advocate, holding for Shri. S.B. Talekar,
     Advocate, for petitioner.

     Shri. A.S. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for
     respondent Nos.1 and 8.

     Respondent No.3 - served.

     Petition is dismissed as against respondent Nos.2 and 4.

     Shri. Y.B. Bolkar, Advocate, holding for Shri. R.B.
     Raghuwanshi, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

     Shri. Ajay Deshpande, Advocate for respondent Nos.6 and
     7.

                                        ----

                                Coram:         T.V. NALAWADE &
                                               SANGITRAO S PATIL, JJ.

                                Date:          8 June 2017.

     JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.)

1) The petition is filed against one Law College,

the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, against the

University Grants Commission and the University to which

the Law College is affiliated for getting approval to the

3 WP 6515 of 2004

appointment of the petitioner as full time Lecturer in Law

College which is receiving 100% grant-in-aid. Both the

sides are heard.

2) It is the case of the petitioner that he has been

working as full time Lecturer in respondent Law College

since 1-7-1995. It is his contention that the University of

Poona had prescribed qualification for the post of Lecturer

in Law as LL.M. and as he is LL.M. he was eligible to get

appointment to the post of full time Lecturer. It is his

contention that duly constituted committee had taken

interview for the academic year 1995-96 and he was given

appointment by appointment order dated 1-7-1995. It is

his contention that the appointment was approved by the

University as a special case. It is contended that in the

interest of the students the condition of securing B+

Grade in LL.M. as well as passing NET or SET

examination was relaxed in his favour. It is contended that

subsequently his appointment for subsequent period was

approved on Clock Hour Basis. It is contended that the

University has the power to grant exemption of the

aforesaid nature. He has contended that as per the rules,

4 WP 6515 of 2004

further approval of the University Grants Commission

("UGC") was required to be obtained and so he had

applied for such relaxation to the UGC and copy was sent

to the University. It is his contention that nothing was

informed to him about such approval and so he needs to

be treated as full time Lecturer in Law. He is seeking

approval as full time Lecturer right from the date of

aforesaid appointment and he wants the pay scale

prescribed for the full time Lecturer and also the revised

pay scale.

3) There is reply affidavit of the University and it

shows that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment

as Lecturer in the faculty of Law as he was not fulfilling

the conditions laid down for it by the UGC. It is the case

of the University that for academic year 1995-96 no

proposal was received by it for giving approval to the

appointment of the petitioner by his employer. It is

contended by the University that for the academic year

1997-98 the University had granted permission to the

college of the petitioner to advertise the post and start

process of recruitment for such post. It is contended that

5 WP 6515 of 2004

the committee was constituted by the university and on 5-

4-1998 the committee had taken interview of the

candidates who had applied for the post. It is the case of

the University that candidate Shri. N.K. Patil was selected

by the committee for the post of Lecturer against S.T.

category though he was not belonging to S.T. category as

S.T. category candidate was not available. Thus it is the

case of the University that the petitioner was never

selected by properly constituted committee. It is the case

of the University that in spite of these circumstances, the

College gave appointment to the petitioner for the

academic year 1997-98 and so the approval granted by

the University for the period from 1-7-1997 to 31-12-1997

was not on permanent basis. It is contended that as the

petitioner was not qualified for getting that post, there

was no question of giving approval in respect of his

appointment as regular full time Lecturer. It is contended

that for academic year 1999 - 2000 when permission was

granted for advertisement, the petitioner appeared before

the selection committee but said appointment of the

petitioner was on clock hour basis. It is contended that in

subsequent years also permission was granted by the

6 WP 6515 of 2004

University to the college to public advertisement and fill

in the regular post. It is contended that in the year 2002-

2003 selection committee of the University had selected

candidate Shri. Vijay Bahiram and the name of the present

petitioner was not sent to the University for approval in

that year also. It is contended that for the period from 1-

1-2004 to 30-4-2004 again approval was given to the

appointment of the petitioner on clock hour basis and he

was never approved as full time Lecturer in Law by the

University.

4) It is the case of the University that basically the

petitioner was not having 55% marks in LL.M.

Examination (B Plus) and so there was no question of

granting further relaxation like not passing NET/SET

examination.

5) There is record in respect of the aforesaid

contentions made by the University. The marks list of the

present petitioner shows that he secured Grade "C" in

LL.M. examination and he was external candidate for the

LL.M. examination. Thus the petitioner was never eligible

7 WP 6515 of 2004

for getting appointment to the post of full time Lecturer.

The procedure is laid down in Statute of the respondent

University and Statute 415 shows that there is separate

procedure given for appointment to the teaching staff on

temporary basis and for appointment of teaching staff as

against permanent post. Admittedly the petitioner was

never selected by the committee constituted by the

University as against permanent full time post of Lecturer

in Law. Thus, there was no question of giving approval to

the appointment for such post. The contention of the

petitioner shows that on the date of the petition he was

working on clock hour basis. In view of these

circumstances there is no question of giving direction to

the respondents to approve the appointment of the

petitioner as full time Lecturer in Law. Further reliefs

claimed by the petitioner are consequential reliefs and so

no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner in the

present matter. The petition is dismissed. Rule is

discharged. No order as to cost.

             Sd/-                                            Sd/-
     (SANGITRAO S PATIL, J.)                        (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)

     rsl