Bombay High Court
Sakharam Nanasaheb Tambe vs State Of Mah & Ors on 16 June, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
WP Nos. 1207/06 & Ors.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1207 OF 2006
Chandrashekhar S/o Pandurang Halge,
Age: 29 years, Occu: Education,
R/o : Kanerwadi, Tq : Parli,
Dist : Beed. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Education Department of Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Marathwada University,
Through Registrar,
Aurangabad.
3. Phulchand Bhagwanrao Mengde,
Age: 26 Years, Occu: Service,
R/o : Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Marathwada University,
Aurangabad. ....Respondents.
Mr. P.P. More, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S.W. Munde, AGP for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. N.B. Khandare, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Mr. J.R. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.3
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3937 OF 2005
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10338 OF 2005
Anuradha D/o Bajirao Shinde,
Age: 22 Years, Occu: Education,
R/o Near Dr. C.A. Gaikwad's Hospital,
Manorama Apartment Road, Adarshnagar,
Beed, Taluka and Dist. Beed. ....Petitioner.
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:07:16 :::
WP Nos. 1207/06 & Ors.
2
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University, Aurangabad,
Through it's Registrar. ....Respondent.
Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for Respondent.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4270 OF 2005
Vaishali Manikrao Barad,
Age: 28 Years, Occu: Education,
R/o. Plot No.76, Nayanagar,
N2, Cidco, Aurangabad. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashstra,
(Through the Secretary,
School Education Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai).
2. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Marathwada University,
(Through its Registrar)
Aurangabad.
3. Smt. Vijaya Manikarao Dahiphale
Age : 30 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Behind Bus Stand,
Prashant Nagar, Ambejogai
District Beed. ...Respondents.
Mr. B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S.W. Munde, AGP for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. N.B. Khandare, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Mr. S. B. Talekar, Advocates for Respondent No.3
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4569 OF 2005
Pranita Prabhakarrao Hatole,
Age : 29 Years, Occ: Nil,
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:07:16 :::
WP Nos. 1207/06 & Ors.
3
R/o. MHADA Colony, Near Print Travel,
Aurangabad - 431005. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
School Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar,
Marathwada University,
Through it's Registrar,
District - Aurangabad.
3. Smt. Savita Hariba Kadam
Age : 32 Years, Occu: Service,
C/o. D.D. Jagtap, Plot No.55,
Galli No. 11, Pundlik Nagar,
Garkheda Area, Aurangabad.
Notice to be served Through :-
Assistant Registrar (Establishment),
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University,Aurangabad.
Dist.Aurangabad. ...Respondents.
Mr. B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S.W. Munde, AGP for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. S.S. Thombre, & N.B. Khandre, Advocates for Respondent No.2.
Mr. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4630 OF 2005
Ganesh S/o Nanasaheb Desai,
Age : 29 Years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Deogaon Rangari,
Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Education Department of
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:07:16 :::
WP Nos. 1207/06 & Ors.
4
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Marathwada University
(Through Registrar)
Aurangabad.
3. Venkat S/o. Genpatrao Limgave,
Age : 48 Years, Occu : Service,
R/o. N - 11, B-44/1, Hudco,
Aurangabad. ...Respondents.
Mr. P.P. More, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S.W. Munde, AGP for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. S.S. Thombre, & N.B. Khandre, Advocates for Respondent No.2
Mr. J.R. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.3
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6305 OF 2005
Gayatri Yogiraj Tandale,
Aged : 29 Years, Occu : Service,
R/o. Plot No.14, Ravindra Nagar,
Near Shiv Shankar Colony,
Aurangabad - 431005. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
School Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Marathwada University,
Through it's Registrar Aurangabad,
District - Aurangabad.
3. Vijay S/o Laxmanrao Pundkar,
Age : 32 Years, Occu : Service,
Assistant Laboratory Assistant,
Dept. of Bio-Chemistry,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:07:16 :::
WP Nos. 1207/06 & Ors.
5
4. Somnath S/o Janardhan Ghodke,
Age : 30 Years, Occ : Service,
Assistant Laboratory Assistant,
Dept. of Environmental Science,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
Notices of Resp. No. 3 and 4 to be served
through :-
Office of Registrar,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. ...Respondents.
Mr. B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S.W. Munde, AGP for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. J.R. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.3 & 4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6618 OF 2005
Sakharam Nanasaheb Tambe,
Age : 37 Years, Occu: Nil-Ex-Serviceman,
R/o. Tamba Rajuri, Tq. Patoda,
Dist. Beed. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
School Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Marathwada University, Aurangabad
Through it's Registrar,
District - Aurangabad.
3. Satish S/o Ramhari Dawane,
Age : 29 Years, Occu: Service,
C/o. Assistant Registrar (Est.),
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University,
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:07:16 :::
WP Nos. 1207/06 & Ors.
6
Aurangabad.
Notice to be served through :-
Assistant Registrar (Establishment),
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. ...Respondents.
Mr. B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S.W. Munde, AGP for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi & Mr. N.B. Khandare, Advocates for
Respondent No.2.
Mr. J.R. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.3
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : June 16, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
. The proceedings are filed to challenge the selections
made for many posts of different categories advertised by the
respondent - University. The posts of Junior Assistant, Junior Library
Assistant, Programme Organiser, Store Keeper etc. (in all 17
categories) were advertised and each category was having different
pay scale. A Committee was constituted by the University as per the
statutes for the selection of the candidates. As per the policy
decision of the Managing Committee and the instructions issued by
the Vice Chancellor, the candidates were expected to go through the
written test which was of seventy five marks and the other mode of
assessment was of their educational qualification and oral interview.
Twenty five marks were equally divided for educational qualification
WP Nos. 1207/06 & Ors.
and oral interview. On the basis of the total marks secured by each
candidate, merit list was prepared and selection was made.
2. In almost all the petitions, it is the case of petitioners,
who had applied for different posts that they had secured more
marks in written examination than the candidates selected, but their
selection was not done by giving them less marks in oral interview
and also in educational qualification. It is their allegation that there
were malafides and the candidates who were working in University
(in some cases) were preferred. It is also their contention that when
the previous Vice Chancellor had issued instruction that three
candidates, who had passed in written examination were to be called
for each post, the new Vice Chancellor issued another instruction
and directed to call ten candidates for each post for interview. It is
also contention of the petitioners that when experience was also
mentioned as requisite condition, some candidates who had no
experience were selected. It is the case of petitioner from Writ
Petition No. 3937/2005 that though she is physically handicapped,
she was not called for interview when some other candidates were
called for interview. Advocate for petitioner from Writ Petition No.
3937/2005 did not turned up to prosecute the matter and nothing is
shown as to how the petitioner had secured more marks than the
candidates who were called for interview.
WP Nos. 1207/06 & Ors.
3. The submissions and the record show that as there were
grievances of aforesaid nature and the proceedings were filed in
High Court by the petitioners, the Vice Chancellor appointed one
retired District Judge to make enquiry in to the allegations. The
retired District Judge made enquiry in to the allegations and
submitted report to Vice Chancellor. Copy of that report was made
available to this Court. It is true that some suggestions are given by
the retired District Judge and he has expressed opinion with regard
to the reservation policy which needs to be followed, but no major
irregularities were noticed by him and malafides were not noticed by
him. In some cases, he found that the selected candidates had no
experience.
4. The reply affidavit filed by the University and others and
the submissions show that mark list of the candidates of written test
was not made available to the Selection Committee constituted by
the University. This single circumstance is sufficient to infer that it
was not possible for the Committee Members to see that the
candidates who were having more marks in written test are given
less marks and the candidates who were having less marks in
written test are given more marks to see that the respondents are
selected. Due to this single circumstance, it can be said that there is
WP Nos. 1207/06 & Ors.
no force in the first contention made by the petitioners. Further, this
contention is not true in some cases. It needs to be kept in mind
that there is not much difference in the marks secured in the written
examination by the selected candidates and by the petitioners and
further, only twenty five marks were kept for the assessment which
was to be made in other two ways. Specific procedure was given for
giving marks for educational qualification and not a single incident is
pointed out to show that the said procedure, giving particular marks
for particular qualification and for particular class, was not followed.
5. The contention that initially three candidates were called
for each post, but subsequently decision was taken to call ten
candidates for each post for interview cannot become itself a ground
for setting aside the selections. It is within the power of the
University to take decision on this point and if the University takes
decision to consider more candidates for selection, no malafides can
be inferred in that regard. Further, it can be said that in many cases
when the last candidate who could have been called for interview
was having particular marks and there were two more candidates
having similar marks in written examination, if the University called
all of them for interview, this procedure cannot be looked in to from
different angle with suspicion. It can be said that the University
decided to give opportunity to all such candidates. Thus, the
WP Nos. 1207/06 & Ors.
submissions and the record show that the scheme for the
assessment was already prepared and the selection was made as per
the scheme. Thus, there is no force in the aforesaid challenges.
6. It is true that the point of experience is raised by some
petitioners and irregularity was found to some extent by retired
District Judge on this point. This point itself is not sufficient to infer
the malafides. From the nature of advertisement, it can be said that
the candidates having experience were to be preferred. It is not the
case of the petitioner that he got equal marks with the respondents
and he was having experience, but he was not preferred. In all the
cases, the respondents got more marks than the petitioners. Thus,
no case is made out on this point also. In view of these
circumstances, this Court holds that interference is not possible in
the selection process which is adopted by the University. The
candidates got appointment and they have been working in the
University on the aforesaid posts.
7. In the result, the petitions stand dismissed. Rule stands
discharged.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
ssc/
