Bombay High Court
Digambar Madhavrao Tangalwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 31 March, 2017
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp6748.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6748 OF 2015
1] Shri Digambar s/o Madhavrao
Tangalwad, age 38 years,
Occ. Asstt. Registrar,
having office address
Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada
University, Dnyanteerth,
Vishnupuri, Nanded ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through it's Chief Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Backward Class Cell, Mantralaya,
Munbai-32,
2] The Principal Secretary,
Higher & Technical Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
3] The Asstt. Commissioner,
Backward Cell, Divisional
Commissioner Office, Aurangabad,
4] The Director, Higher Education,
Directorate, Middle Building,
Pune - 411 001,
5] The Swami Ramanand Teerth
Marathwada University,
Dnyanteerth, Vishnupuri,
Nanded, through it's Registrar,
6] The Vice Chancellor of
Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada
University, Dnyanteerth,
Vishnupuri, Nanded,
::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:12:32 :::
2 wp6748.15
7] The Registrar,
Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada
University, Dnyanteerth,
Vishnupuri, Nanded,
8] The Departmental
Promotion Committee,
Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada
University, Dnyanteerth,
Vishnupuri, Nanded,
9] The Director,
Board of College & University,
Development Committee,
Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada
University, Dnyanteerth,
Vishnupuri, Nanded,
10] Ramtirthee Venkat Prabhu,
Age major, occ. Service,
R/o having official address
Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada
University, Dnyanteerth,
Vishnupuri, Nanded. ...Respondents
.....
Shri Vijay Dixit, Senior advocate i/b
Shri G.A.Gadhave Patil, advocate for the petitioner
Mr. M.B.Bharaswadkar, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4
Shri U.S.Malte, Advocate for respondent nos. 5 to 8
Shri Vijay Sharma, advocate for respondent no.10
.....
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA
AND
K.L.WADANE, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING
THE JUDGMENT : 2.3.2017
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT
OF THE JUDGMENT : 31.3.2017
::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:12:32 :::
3 wp6748.15
JUDGMENT (Per K.L.Wadane, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties, taken up for final hearing.
2. The petitioner challenged the roster
verification report of respondent no.1 and the
order, dated 29.6.2015 passed by the respondent
no.6 by which promotional claim of the petitioner
on the post of Deputy Registrar is rejected.
3. As per the Government Resolution, dated
10.10.1997 it was directed to all the Universities
that they should follow the reservation policy in
view of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court
in the case of R.K.Sabbarwal vs State of Punjab.
The State Government issued directions that the
roster of the direct recruitment and promotion
should be maintained differently.
4. In the year 2008 Departmental Promotion
4 wp6748.15
Committee of respondent no.5 conducted meeting and
took a decision to fill in the five posts of
Deputy Registrar through promotion. As per the
reservation policy the 5th post of Deputy Registrar
ought to have been filled in from the Scheduled
Tribe category, but the University did not fill in
it from the Scheduled Tribe category and converted
that post for open category for direct
recruitment. In fact, that post was to be filled
in by promotion from the Scheduled Tribe category.
Just to deprive the right of the petitioner the
University has filled in that post by way of
direct recruitment.
5. As per the Government Resolution, dated
23.7.2009 the Government has approved seven posts
of Deputy Registrar of respondent no.5 University.
of 2013 seeking direction to the respondents that
they should give promotion to the petitioner. The
petitioner withdrew that Writ Petition with
5 wp6748.15
permission.
7. On 10.7.2013 the respondent no.3
communicated to respondent no.5, that they should
fill up the backlog of the reserved category. The
petitioner then filed representation to respondent
nos. 5 and 6 and requested that unless roster is
verified by the competent authority the University
should not give promotion to any person on the
post of Deputy Registrar and the petitioner prayed
to give him promotion on the post of Deputy
Registrar. Without verification of the roster,
the respondent nos. 5 to 8 initiated the
proceedings to fill up 3 posts of Deputy
Registrar. Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 31 of 2015, in
which this Court has directed respondent nos. 5 to
8 that they shall not give promotion to any person
on the post of Deputy Registrar unless and until
they get verified roster from respondent nos. 1
to 3. So also, directions were given to
respondent no.6 to decide the claim of the
6 wp6748.15
petitioner about his promotion. In that Writ
Petition, the University filed its reply and
contended that one post has been kept vacant due
to the complaint of the petitioner and that post
will be filled in after verification report of the
roster. This Court further directed to respondent
no.1 to take decision on the roster forwarded by
the University within three months and thereafter
respondent/authority shall decide the
representation of the petitioner within 15 days.
8. On 15.12.2014, respondent no.3 verified
the roster preliminary and forwarded report to
respondent no.5 and it was observed that it was
incumbent on the part of respondent no.5 to fill
up one post of Deputy Registrar from Scheduled
Tribe category.
9. On 5.6.2015 respondent no.1 has done the
final verification of the roster of respondent
no.5 and forwarded its report to respondent no.5.
In the report, respondent no.5 observed that the
7 wp6748.15
decision taken by the University in the year 2008
in regard to 100 per cent promotion is not
correct. On 27.6.2015, respondent no.8 decided to
take the written test of respondent no.10 for the
post of Deputy Registrar. However, in spite of
taking decision on the claim of the petitioner
they have initiated the proceedings to fill up the
post of Deputy Registrar. On 29.6.2015 the
petitioner was heard on his claim of promotion by
respondent no.6. At the same time, respondent
no.5 issued call letter of interview to respondent
no.10. On 30.6.2015 the respondent no.6 informed
to the petitioner that his claim of promotion is
rejected. On the same day, interview of
respondent no.10 was taken. He was given
promotion on the same day. He joined on the
promoted post. Hence, this Writ Petition.
10. Respondent nos. 5 to 8 have submitted
their affidavit-in-reply. On the establishment of
respondent no.5 one post of Deputy Registrar was
transferred from the Marathwada University.
8 wp6748.15
Subsequently, respondent no.5 received two
additional posts. It was not possible to fill up
3 posts by promotion. Hence, such posts are
filled in by direct recruitment. In the year
2004, the University received four posts. All the
previous three posts were vacant due to death,
dismissal and resignation of the employees. As
per the Government communication, dated 28.10.2004
all the four posts were to be filled in through
promotion. Out of four, three posts were filled
by promotion and one post was vacant due to non-
availability of qualified candidate. On
13.11.2007 the University received one post.
Departmental Promotion Committee i.e. respondent
no.8 promoted one Hambarde. On 23.7.2009 the
Government sanctioned two posts, hence, there were
7 posts, 4 goes to promotee and 3 goes to direct
recruitee. The University has already promoted
four persons i.e. one from Scheduled Caste
category and three from open category and
remaining three posts were fill in, of which one
was direct belonging to Scheduled Caste category
9 wp6748.15
and two were for open category and such promotion
is accepted by respondent no.1.
11. The petitioner joined as Assistant
Registrar in the year 2011 and he can claim such
promotion after three years subject to
availability of the post. As per the order of
this Court in Writ Petition No. 31 of 2015 the
University had submitted all the documents to
respondent no.1 for verification of the roster.
Respondent no.1 has given report dated 5.6.2015
and accepted and approved the reservation i.e. one
for Scheduled Caste category and three for open
category. The petitioner was heard by respondent
no.6. The process was completed by regularizing
promotion of Mr. Sable and Mr. Ramtirthe was
promoted in the vacant post of one Mr. Mali. So,
according to the respondents the process of
promotion undertaken by respondent nos. 5 to 8 is
in accordance with the Rules, Regulations and
Guidelines issued by the State Government from
time to time. The promotion was as per the final
10 wp6748.15
roster verification by respondent no.1. Hence,
there was no illegality or irregularity in the
process of promotion.
12. We have heard the arguments of Mr.
V.J.Dixit, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. M.B.Bharaswadkar, learned A.G.P.
for respondent nos. 1 to 4, Mr. U.S.Malte, learned
counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 8 and Mr. Vijay
Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.10.
13. We have perused the documents on record
and it appears that the petitioner was appointed
in the year 2011 and he was due for promotion
after three years as per the availability and
suitability of the post. Therefore, prior to 2014
the petitioner was not eligible to be promoted.
Mean time, as per the directions given by this
Court in Writ Petition No. 31 of 2015 the
University has submitted all the documents to
respondent no.1 for verification of roster and the
respondent no.1 after scrutiny of all the relevant
11 wp6748.15
documents submitted its report on 5.6.2015. From
the record, it appears that there were 7
sanctioned posts of the Assistant Registrar, 4
goes to promotee and 3 goes to direct recruitee.
The University has already promoted 4 persons i.e.
one from the scheduled category and 3 from open
category and remaining 3 posts were fill in and
appointed from direct recruitees, in that category
also one was belonging to scheduled caste and two
were from open category, and such promotions given
by the University were accepted by respondent no.1
as per the final roster.
14. On perusal of the final roster, dated
5.6.2015 it appears that reservation for the
recruitment of 4 posts was finalised, out of which
one post was reserved for scheduled caste and
three were kept for open category. The post
reserved for scheduled caste was already filled
in. Only one post from the open category was
vacant and on that post the University has
appointed respondent no.10 after following due
12 wp6748.15
process of law. At the time of selection of
respondent no.10, the post reserved for scheduled
tribe was not vacant. The roster is verified by
the experts. We would not sit in appeal over the
decision of experts.
15. It appears that initially in the year
2004-05 some mistake was committed by the
University in filling of the post as per roster
and so also not maintaining the ratio of
appointment by direct recruits and promotees.
However, at that time petitioner was not eligible
for promotion of Deputy Registrar. For the first
time petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Registrar in the year 2011. He has to wait for
three years as Assistant Registrar to be eligible
for being considered for the post of Deputy
Registrar by promotion. On or after 2014 no
vacant post of Deputy Registrar from the scheduled
tribe category is available and vacant. Therefore
the petitioner was not promoted. As per
respondent, next vacancy would be for scheduled
13 wp6748.15
tribe category candidate. At that time claim of
petitioner can be considered and/or if post of
Deputy Registrar are increased the claim of
petitioner can be considered. In view of above,
the University has rightly selected respondent
no.10 from open category.
16. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. No
costs.
(K.L.WADANE, J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.)
JUDGE JUDGE
dbm/6748.15
