Miss. Sanjivani Shripati Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8446 Bom

(8)-WP-2824-15.doc.



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION  

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 2824  OF 2015

Miss Sanjivani Shripati Kamble
Age: 36 years, Occ: Service, 
A/p. Shahunagar (Parite), Tal-Karvir, 
Dist. Kolhapur                                       ..... Petitioner.

                  V/s

1) The State of Maharashtra
     Through the Secretary
     Higher and Technical Education 
     Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai. 

2) The Joint Director 
     Higher Education, Mah. State, 
     Central Building, Pune.

3) Registrar, 
    Shivaji University Kolhapur 
    Through Director 
    Board of College and University. 

4) The President 
     Parampoojya Swami Vivekanand 
     Sevarsharam Shikshan Sanstha, Shirala,
     Tal. Shirala, Dist: Sangli. 

5) The Principal 
     Baba Naik Mahavidhyalay, Kokrud, 
     Tal: Shirala, Dist: Sangli. 

6) University Grants Commission 
     Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, 
     New Delhi-110002.                               ..... Respondents.

Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. S. R. Ghanavat, Advocate for the 
Petitioner.


BGP.                                                                            1 of 8




       ::: Uploaded on - 09/11/2017                 ::: Downloaded on - 10/11/2017 01:24:20 :::
 (8)-WP-2824-15.doc.



Mr. C. P. Yadav, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. A. B. Borkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

Mr. S. D. Chavan i/b Mr. Vilas Zole-Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 
and 5.  

Mr. R. A. Rodrigues, Advocate for Respondent No.6.
   

                                                CORAM :  B. R. GAVAI & 
                                                                SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. 

DATE : 6th NOVEMBER, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B. R. Gavai, J)

1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

2] The Petitioner in the present Petition had initially

approached this Court for a writ of mandamus for setting aside the

communication dated 25th June 2014 and 16th February 2015 vide which

it was held that the Petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as

librarian. By way of amendment, the Petitioner has also challenged the

order dated 1st August 2015 vide which the Respondent No.3 - University

has decided that the Ph.D granted to the Petitioner by Manav Bharati

University (Himachal Pradesh) cannot be considered to be equivalent

with the Ph.D granted by the Respondent No.3 - University.

BGP.                                                                                       2 of 8





 (8)-WP-2824-15.doc.

3]                The facts in brief giving rise to the present Petition are as 

under :- 

It appears that in response to the advertisement issued by the

Respondent No.5 - college under the management of the Respondent

No.4, the Petitioner had applied for the post of librarian. The necessary

qualification for the said post was a clearance of NET/SET. However such

of the candidates who acquired Ph.D. were exempted from the eligibility

of NET/SET.

4] Admittedly, at the relevant time, the Petitioner had not

cleared NET/SET. The Petitioner however had obtained Ph.D. from

Manav Bharati University. The Selection Committee in its meeting dated

11th October 2012 found the Petitioner at Sr. No.1 in the list of merit. As

such, the Respondent - Management had sought approval of the

Respondent No.3 - University for appointment of the Petitioner. The

approval was sought on the ground that the Petitioner possesses the

Ph.D. degree. It is further pertinent to note that even prior to that

appointment, the Petitioner was working in the Respondent No.5 college

since 2009 on temporary basis. It appears that the Respondent No.3 -

University did not decide the proposal as submitted by the Respondent

No.5 college. It further appears that it was stand of the Respondent No.3

BGP. 3 of 8

(8)-WP-2824-15.doc.

- University that the Ph.D. degree of the Petitioner was not equivalent to

the Ph.D. granted by the Respondent No.3 - University. It appears that

vide order dated 3rd August 2015 leave was granted by this Court to add

University Grants Commission ("UGC") as party Respondent. Vide

subsequent order dated 21st March 2017 this Court directed the UGC to

take a clear stand as to whether the Petitioner's Ph.D. degree is in

conformity with UGC Regulations or not. It further appears that in the

meantime the Respondent No.3 - University had referred the matter with

regard to the equivalence of the Petitioner before the Equivalence

Committee. Vide communication letter dated 1st August 2015, the

Equivalence Committee found that the Ph.D. degree obtained by the

Petitioner cannot be considered to be equivalent to the Ph.D. granted by

Respondent No.3 - University.

5] In this background, we have heard the present Petition.

6] Mr. Mihir Desai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf

of the Petitioner referring to the judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court, to which one of us (B. R. Gavai, J) was party in Dr. Sanjay

Tejbahadur Singh Vs. The Registrar, Savitribai Phule Pune University

th and others in Writ Petition No.6978 of 2015 decided on 26 July 2017

submits that the Respondent No.3 - University will have no jurisdiction to

BGP. 4 of 8

(8)-WP-2824-15.doc.

go into the question of equivalence. He submits that in view of the

aforesaid judgment, if Ph.D. degree is awarded by a University which is

recognized by UGC, then the Respondent No.3 - University will have no

other option, but to accept such a degree.

7] Mr. A. B. Borkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

Respondent No.3 - University on the contrary would submit that the view

taken by this Court in Dr. Sanjay Tejbahadur Singh's case is not a correct

view. He submits that the Court has not noticed the judgment of the Apex

Court in Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and

another reported in (2009) 1 SCC 610 and in the case of Rajendra

Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka University and another reported in

1986 (Supp) SCC 740 while deciding the said case. It is therefore

submitted that the view of this Court in Dr. Sanjay Tejbahadur Singh's case

would be per incurium to the judgment in the Guru Nanak Dev

University's case. He further submits that it is not clear from the judgment

of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Sanjay Tejbahadur

Singh's case, as to whether the Pune University had similar powers, as are

available with Respondent No.3 - University, in view of ordinance 14 and

15 of the ordinances.

BGP.                                                                                     5 of 8





 (8)-WP-2824-15.doc.

8]                We find considerable force in the submissions made by Mr. A. 

B. Borkar. It would be relevant to refer to ordinance 14 and 15 of the

ordinances framed by the Respondent No.3 - University.

"O.14 There shall be a Standing Committee on Equivalence of Examination which shall consist of :

1) The Vice-Chancellor, Ex-officio (Chairman)

2) The Deans of Faculties.

               3)    The Registrar-Member-Secretary. 

           O.15       The   Standing   Committee   on   Equivalence   of 

Examinations shall, on examining the syllabii and rules of admissions and standards of assessment of performance of examinees and standard of passing etc.; of the examinations of other Statutory Universities/Examining Bodies, consider the equivalence of Examinations with the corresponding examinations of this University and recommend to the Academic Council accordingly."

9] It is further to be noted that in the case of Guru Nanak Dev

University's case, Their Lordships observed thus in paragraph 15 :-

"15. The first respondent has passed his MA (OUS) from Annamalai University through distance education. Equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution duly published. The first respondent has not been able to produce any document to show that the appellant University has recognised MA (English) (OUS) of Annamalai University through distance education as equivalent to MA of appellant University. Thus, it has to be held that the first respondent does not fulfil the eligibility criterion of the appellant University for admission to the three year law course."

BGP.                                                                                    6 of 8





 (8)-WP-2824-15.doc.

It could thus be seen that the Apex Court in the said case has clearly held

that the question of equivalence is the policy of academic expertise, the

Court will not interfere in the said policy. A similar view is taken in the

case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur's case.

10] In that view of the matter, we find that at least in so far as

the Kolhapur University is concerned, in view of ordinance 14 and 15, it

will have to be held that the Equivalence Committee appointed by the

University will have a jurisdiction to go into the issue, as to whether the

degree awarded by another University can be construed to be degree

equivalent to the one issued by Respondent No.3 - University.

11] In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding

that Mr. A. B. Borkar is right in contending that the view taken in the

judgment of this Court, to which one of us (B. R. Gavai, J) was a party,

cannot be said to be a view, laying a correct proposition of law.

12] However, in view of the other developments, we find that it

will not be necessary for us to go into the question as to whether the

Ph.D. degree awarded to the Petitioner by Manav Bharati University can

be considered to be equivalent to the one granted by the Respondent

No.3 - University. Admittedly, even prior to the filing of the Petition, the

BGP. 7 of 8

(8)-WP-2824-15.doc.

Petitioner had cleared her SET examination on 12 th June 2014. It could

thus be seen that the Petitioner possesses the necessary qualification to be

appointed as librarian at least from 12th June 2014.

13] In that view of the matter, while not finding fault with the

stand taken by the University, we find that in view of the peculiar facts

and circumstances and also in the light of the course adopted by Their

Lordships in the Guru Nanak Dev University's case, the Petitioner's

appointment deserves to be approved from 12 th June 2014. We are

inclined to take this view, since the Petitioner has undergone the selection

process conducted by a Selection Committee constituted as per law and

found to be at Sr. No.1 in the order of merit. In that view of the matter,

rule is made absolute by directing the University to grant approval to the

Petitioner's appointment as a librarian with effect from 12 th June 2014.

The same shall be done within a period of four weeks from date.

[SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.]                                          [B. R. GAVAI, J.]




BGP.                                                                               8 of 8