Bombay High Court
Dr Manish Atmaram Anand vs Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada ... on 15 June, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
W.P.No.767/04
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 767 OF 2004
Dr. Manish s/o. Atmaram Anand,
Age 51 years, Occu. Lecturer,
R/o. C/o. B.R. Nandgawali, Plot No. 2,
D Sector, N-12, HUDCO,
Aurangabad. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University, Through its Registrar,
University Campus, Near Begampura,
Aurangabad.
2. Hon'ble Vice Chancellor,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University, University Campus,
Near Begampura, Aurangabad.
3. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Higher Education and Technical
Education, Mantralaya Extension,
Mumbai-32.
4. Dr. B.N. Kurade,
Age 47 years, Occu. Lecturer,
R/o. 19-A, nandanwan Colony,
Aurangabad.
5. University Grants Commission,
Through its Secretary,
Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg,
New Delhi - 110 002. ....Respondents.
Mr. U.R. Awate h/f. Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Kadam, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. S.W. Munde, A.G.P. for respondent No. 3/State.
Mr. Y.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 4.
::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2017 00:36:20 :::
W.P.No.767/04
2
Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 5.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : June 15, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE]
. The petition is filed to challenge the appointment of
respondent No. 4 made by respondent No. 1 - University on the
basis of interviews held as per the advertisement issued by the
University on 16.10.2001. Both the sides are heard.
2. One open post of lecturer in 'Pali and Buddisim' was
published by the University and the candidate was expected to
have specialization in Buddist Literature, Buddhist Art, Culture
Philosophy and Modern Buddhist Thinker. Present petitioner and
respondent No. 4 participated in the recruitment process. The
Committee constituted for selection ranked respondent No. 4 at
Sr. No. 1 and petitioner was ranked at Sr. No. 2. It is the
grievance of the petitioner that petitioner was having NET
qualification, but he was not preferred and respondent No. 4,
who had completed M.Phil decree was preferred. He has one
more grievance that the subject for M.Phil decree of respondent
No. 4 was not the subject mentioned in the advertisement, but
W.P.No.767/04
he was preferred to the petitioner. One more ground which is
not mentioned in the petition is argued. It was submitted that as
per the record the petitioner was not there in Nagpur for getting
M.Phil decree from Nagpur University at the relevant time and
he was serving in Aurangabad and so, the M.Phil degree was not
properly obtained by respondent No. 4. Some record in that
regard is also produced.
3. The learned counsel for University and U.G.C. drew
the attention of this Court to various notifications issued in
respect of aforesaid grievances. The notifications show that the
candidates who had completed M.Phil degree were exempted
from the condition of NET examination, provided that they had
submitted their thesis or they had obtained degree prior to 31st
December 1993 and this last date was extended from time to
time and copies of those notifications are also produced. Even in
the advertisement which was published by respondent No. 1
University, the condition which was requirement of NET, but if
candidate had obtained M.Phil degree prior to 31st December
1993 was exempted from the requirement of NET/SET
examination. Admittedly, respondent No. 4 had obtained M.Phil
degree prior to December 1993, the prescribed date and so, he
W.P.No.767/04
was entitled to exemption.
4. The record is produced to show the subjects which
were there for M.Phil degree of respondent No. 4. Though in the
degree certificate, it is mentioned that it was a degree in 'Pali
and Prakrut', the syllabus shows that though there were two
courses available for M.Phil decree, course No. 1 was M.Phil in
Pali/Buddhism. Separate certificate is also produced of the same
University showing that there was no candidate in the relevant
year in M.Phil in 'Prakruit and Jainism'. Though in the certificate,
there is mention that it was for 'Pali and Prakrut', as per the
syllabus, there was the subject of 'Buddisim'. Ultimately, it is the
employer who is to ascertain as to whether the employer is
getting the candidate having requisite qualification and there is
no grievance of the employer. Respondent No. 4 was already
imparting this subject in junior college from Aurangabad and
this fact is not disputed.
5. The submissions made show that though
subsequently the petitioner also got post in the same
department of the University in the year 2008. The submissions
made show that both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 have
W.P.No.767/04
retired due to superannuation. In view of these circumstances,
this Court holds that it is not possible to interfere and give
directions claimed by the petitioner. In the result, the petition
stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
ssc/
