Dr. Priyadarshi S/O. Meghshyam ... vs Honourable Chancellor, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 903 Bom

 Judgment                                          1                                wp1005.16.odt




                  
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                           WRIT PETITION NO. 1005 OF 2016


 Dr. Priyadarshi S/o. Meghshyam 
 Khobragade, Aged about 42 years,
 Occu. : Service, R/o. 261, Government
 Press Society, Dabha, Nagpur-26. 

                                                                       ....  PETITIONER.

                                    //  VERSUS //

 1. Hon'ble Chancellor,
    Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur
    University, Office Address at Rajbhavan,
    Malbarhills, Mumbai - 400 035.

 2. Hon'ble Vice Chancellor,
    Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur
    University, Office Address at Ravindranath
    Tagor Marg, Civil Lines, Nagpur-01. 

 3. Hon'ble Pro-Vice Chancellor,
    Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur
    University, Office Address at Ravindranath
    Tagor Marg, Civil Lines, Nagpur-01. 

 4. The Chairman of Selection Committee,
    (Committee constituted for appointed for
    the selection of suitable candidate for the
    post of Associate Professor (Post Advt. No.
    R/13/28; Subject - Ancient Indian History
    Culture & Archaeology) Rashtrasant Tukdoji
    Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur 
    Office Address at Ravindranath
    Tagor Marg, Civil Lines, Nagpur-01.

 5. The Chairman of Scrutiny Committee,
    (Committee constituted for appointed for
    the selection of suitable candidate for the
    post of Associate Professor (Post Advt. No.
    R/13/28; Subject - Ancient Indian History



::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017                           ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 20:31:41 :::
  Judgment                                              2                                wp1005.16.odt




      Culture & Archaeology) Rashtrasant Tukdoji
      Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur 
      Office Address at Ravindranath
      Tagor Marg, Civil Lines, Nagpur-01.

 6. Hon'ble Registrar,
    Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur
    University, Office Address at Ravindranath
    Tagor Marg, Civil Lines, Nagpur-01. 

 7. Dr. Chandrashekhar Gupta,
    Aged about 70 yrs., Occ. Retired,
    R/o. Nandbhavan, New Shukrawari,
    Mahal, Nagpur. 

 8. Dr. Prabhash Sahu,
    Aged about 44 yrs., Occ. : Service, 
    R/o. 201, Sharmad Sankul, 12, 
    Sumit Nagar, Opp. Azad Hind Nagar
    Ground, Jaitala Road, Nagpur- 22. 

                                                         .... RESPONDENTS
                                                                       . 
  ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri R.V. Khaparde, Advocate for Petitioner. 
 Shri A.A.Madiwale, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. 
 Shri S.M.Puranik, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 7. 
 Ms Gauri Venkatraman, Advocate for Respondent No.8.  
 ___________________________________________________________________

                              CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : MARCH 21, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Earlier this petition was listed before the Division Bench,

however, in view of the order passed by the Division Bench on 30th January,

2017 the petition is listed before this Bench (Single Judge).

1. Heard.

Judgment 3 wp1005.16.odt

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner who offered his candidature for the post of

Associate Professor, Ancient Indian History, Culture & Archaeology pursuant

to the Employment Notice issued by Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur

University on 30th August, 2011, takes exception to the decision of the

Hon'ble Chancellor disposing his objection by which he raised challenge to

the appointment of the respondent No.8 on the ground that he is not having

the minimum required qualifications.

The eligibility qualifications as per advertisement are:

"i) ....

ii) ....

iii) A minimum of Eight years of experience of teaching and/ or research in an academic/ research position equivalent to that of Assistant Professor in a University, College or Accredited Research Institution/ Industry excluding the period of Ph. D. research with evidence of published work and a minimum of 5 publications as books and / or research/ policy papers.

iv) Contribution to education innovation, design of new curricula and courses, and technology mediated teaching learning process with evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and research students."

The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No.8 is

not having the experience as required by clause (iii) above and is not having

contribution to his credit as required by clause (iv) above.

Judgment 4 wp1005.16.odt

4. The learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and the

learned advocate for the respondent No.8 have pointed out the relevant

portion of the report submitted by the respondent No.2-Vice Chancellor to

the Hon'ble Chancellor, relying on which the petition filed by the petitioner is

disposed by the Hon'ble Chancellor. Paragraph 5 of the report (Page 82 of

the paper book) shows that the University Authorities found that the

respondent No.8 had the eligibility qualifications as required by Clause (iii)

above, as the respondent No.8 has more than 8 years of experience of

working in accredited research institution and considered equivalent to the

post of Assistant Professor. However, there is nothing on the record to show

that either the University Authorities or the Hon'ble Chancellor have

examined whether the respondent No.8 is having eligibility qualifications as

per clause (iv), as referred above, which requires that the candidate should

have contributed to education innovation, design of new curricula and

courses and technology- mediated teaching learning process with evidence of

having guided doctoral candidates and research students.

The learned advocates for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and

respondent No.8 have submitted that this point was not raised by the

petitioner in the petition filed before the Hon'ble Chancellor.

5. The learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed out the

pleadings/ averments. In paragraph Nos. 30-A, 30-B, 30-C and 30-D of the

Judgment 5 wp1005.16.odt

writ petition filed before this Court. The petitioner has pleaded that the

respondent No.8 has experience of working with Archaeological Survey of

India as Assistant Archaeologist in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 and Grade

Pay of Rs.4600/- which is far less than the requirement as per the

advertisement. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that pay scale for

the post of Assistant Professor is much higher than the above pay scale and

therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent No.8 was holding position

equivalent to that of Assistant Professor. The petitioner has stated that for

the post of Assistant Professor the pay scale is Rs.15000-39100 and Grade

Pay Rs.6000/-. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent No.8 is not

qualified to be the Supervisor for guiding Ph. D. students which is one of the

eligibility qualification. The petitioner has pointed out that the Scrutiny

Committee found that one of the applicant Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh was held

ineligible for the post as he was not having experience of guiding Ph.D.

students and was not having required number of publications.

The respondents have not given any reply to the above

contentions of the petitioner. The issue is about appointment of the

respondent No.8 on an important post and the challenge is that he is not

having the required eligibility qualifications. The challenges raised by the

petitioner cannot be overlooked and they require consideration. As neither

the University Authorities nor the Hon'ble Chancellor who is conferred with

the jurisdiction under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act,

Judgment 6 wp1005.16.odt

1994 to deal with such challenges, have not adverted to these aspects, in my

view, it is necessary to pass the following order :

i) The impugned decision of the Hon'ble Chancellor disposing the petition filed by the petitioner is set aside.

ii) The matter is remitted to the Hon'ble Chancellor for considering it afresh and examining whether the respondent No.8 has eligibility qualifications as shown in sub-clauses (i), (ii), (iii),

(iv) and (v) of Clause (IV) of the Employment Notice.

iii) The respondent No.2-Vice Chancellor should personally submit a detailed report pointing out to the Hon'ble Chancellor that the respondent No.8 has the required eligibility qualifications.

iv) The Hon'ble Chancellor shall consider the written submissions which may be filed by the petitioner and the respondent No.8 and shall take decision in the matter after granting hearing to the petitioner and the respondent No.8.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. In the

circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

RRaut..