Bombay High Court
Dr. Prashant S/O Vinayak Thakare vs The Honourable Chancellor, ... on 21 November, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, G. A. Sanap
1 WP2590.00 (J).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2590 OF 2000
PETITIONER : Dr. Prashant S/o Vinayak Thakare,
Aged 33 Years,
Occupation : Service as a Lecturer in Molecular
Biology, Deptt. of Bio Technology,
Amravati University,
R/o B-1, Ganga Apartment, Camp. Amravati,
Dist. Amravati.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1] The Honourable Chancellor,
Amravati University (His Excellency,
the Governor of Maharashtra),
Raj Bhavan, Malabar Hill,
Mumbai - 400 035.
2] Amravati University,
through its Vice Chancellor,
3] Smt. Varsha P. Wadegaonkar,
Aged about 32 years,
R/o Vishu B, Rukhmini Nagar,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
4] State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Deptt. Of Higher Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
5] University Grants Commission,
through its Chairman,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi - 110 002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate with Mr. A. B. Patil, Advocate
for the petitioner.
2 WP2590.00 (J).odt
Mr. S. Y. Deopujari, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2.
Mr. A. C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for respondent no.3
Mr. K. L. Dharmadhikari, A.G.P. for respondent no.4
Mr. A. S. Agrawal, Advocate for respondent no.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE and G. A. SANAP, JJ.
Date of Reserving the Judgment : September 29, 2022.
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : November 21, 2022
JUDGMENT [PER : G.A.Sanap, J.]
1. In this petition, the petitioner is seeking writ of certiorari to
quash and set aside the order dated 10.07.2000, passed by the
respondent no.1 - Hon'ble Chancellor, Amravati University, Amravati
directing respondent no.2 - Vice Chancellor, Amravati University,
Amravati to terminate the appointment of the petitioner as a Lecturer in
Molecular Biology in the Department of Bio Technology of Amravati
University and other consequential reliefs.
2. This Court (Coram : D.K. Deshmukh and S.K.Shah, JJ), on
01.08.2000, issued Rule in the matter with a direction to the parties to
maintain status-quo vis-a-vis employment of the petitioner. On
22.04.2022, the petition was heard by this Court (Coram : Nitin Jamdar
and Anil L. Pansare, JJ.) and passed a detailed order. The Court dealt
3 WP2590.00 (J).odt
with the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the parties
and made certain observations in the order. This Court directed the
concerned to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chancellor for further
course of action. This Court in view of the candid observations made in
the order, dated 22.04.2022 made a request to the Hon'ble Chancellor
to have a relook at the impugned order and decide as to whether its
enforcement is necessary as on today. The relevant facts, the questions
raised and prima facie consideration of the same can be gathered by
reproducing the said order. The order dated 22.04.2022 reads thus :-
"Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties at length and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that this
matter needs to be placed before the Hon'ble Chancellor
for reconsideration of the impugned order passed by the
Hon'ble Chancellor on 10 July 2000.
2. The factual backdrop of the case and the
reasons why we intend to follow this course of action are
as under.
3. The Respondent no.2-Amravati University
issued an advertisement on 26 April 1996 for one post of
Lecturer in the subject of Molecular Biology in the
Department of Bio-Technology. The Petitioner applied
4 WP2590.00 (J).odt
and the Petitioner was interviewed by the selection
committee of the Respondent no.2-University
constituted under Section 76 of the Maharashtra
Universities Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act of 1994') on 7
December 1996 and the Petitioner was appointed on 7
December 1996 itself. The Respondent no.3 had also
applied pursuant to the advertisement and was
interviewed. The Respondent no.3 was not selected and
therefore filed a Writ Petition No.1138 of 1998 which
was disposed of on 22 October 1999 whereupon the
Hon'ble Chancellor was requested to decide the
representation of the Respondent no.3. The Respondent
no.1-Hon'ble Chancellor passed the impugned order
holding that the Petitioner had not passed the requisite
examination of NET-SET conducted by the University
Grants Commission or the State Government at the time
of selection and therefore the Petitioner should be
terminated from service. The present writ petition was
filed on 25 July 2000.
4. On 9 August 2000, the interim order was
granted directing the parties to maintain status quo and
the Petitioner continued in service. Thereafter the
Petitioner was awarded Ph.D. on 9 August 1995 and
passed the State Eligibility Test (SET) in the month of
July-2000. Thereafter the Petitioner was promoted to
the post of Reader by the Respondent no.2-University on
23 January 2009.
5 WP2590.00 (J).odt
5. In the meanwhile the Respondent no.3 was
appointed as a Lecturer/Assistant Professor on 17 June
2010. We are informed that the Respondent no.3 is also
likely to be promoted as a Reader soon.
6. As regards the advertisement for the post of
Lecturer is concerned, it was stated that the candidate
who has cleared the Eligibility Test for Lecturers
conducted by the University Grants Commission or the
State Government this requirement could be waived in
the case where the candidate who has submitted his
Ph.D. thesis or was awaiting the Ph.D. degree prior to 31
December 1993. Admittedly, the Petitioner did not
possess NET-SET qualification when the advertisement
was issued nor had the Ph.D. degree prior to 31 February
1993 but had acquired the Ph.D. degree subsequently.
7. Two contentions are raised by the Petitioner;
first that the stipulation of cut-off date of 31 December
1993 which has been relied upon in the impugned order
and contained in the Government Resolution dated 22
December 1995, is arbitrary. Secondly, it is not that
those who have been appointed without passing the
NET-SET examination should be straightway dismissed
from service even though they have acquired the
qualification subsequently.
8. As regards the argument of the Petitioner
regarding cut-off date being arbitrary, the issue is no
longer res integra in light of the decision of the Hon'ble
6 WP2590.00 (J).odt
Supreme Court in the case of University Grants
Commission Versus Sadhana Chaudhary & Others1.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically rejected
the argument that the cut-off date is arbitrary and the
classification does not have nexus with the object. This
argument therefore is not available to the Petitioner.
9. As regards the second contention, the
Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Maharashtra
Federation of University and College Teachers
Organization Versus State of Maharashtra & Others in
Writ Petition No.2082 of 2013 dated 23 December
2015. According to the Petitioner the Division Bench
has protected the services of those non NET-SET
teachers appointed during the period 23 October 1992
to 3 April 2000 on certain conditions. According to the
learned counsel for the Respondent no.2-University
these were only those non NET-SET teachers when they
were appointed there was no suitable qualified candidate
with NET-SET qualification available and in the present
case when the Petitioner was appointed in the year 1996
the Respondent no.3 with NET-SET qualification
available. The Respondent no.3 has contended that since
the Petitioner was not qualified the appointment of the
Petitioner is void ab-initio and no indulgence can be
shown nor equity jurisdiction can be exercised in light of
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
1 (1996) 10 SCC 536
7 WP2590.00 (J).odt
Rakesh Kumar Sharma Versus State (NCT of Delhi) &
Others2.
10. Now we turn to the position as on today. The
petition which concerns the appointment of the
Petitioner of the year 1996 has come up for hearing in
the year 2022 and we have to decide as to whether the
Petitioner should be terminated from service after the
Petitioner has now put in twenty six years of service and
is promoted by the Respondent no.2-University itself
during the pendency of the petition as a Reader.
11. Though reply affidavit is filed by the
Respondent no.2-University stating that the promotion
of the Petitioner is subject to the outcome of this
petition, no leave of this Court was obtained before
promoting the Petitioner inspite of the order of status
quo. It is not the case of either the Respondent no.3 or
the Respondent no.2-University that the Petitioner
misrepresented any factual position when the Petitioner
was selected by Selection Committee of the Respondent
no.2-University.
12. When the Respondent no.3 was not selected
in the year 1996, till date except challenging the
appointment of the Petitioner, the Respondent no.3 has
not taken any step as regards the claim of the Respondent
no.3 to be appointed from the year 1996. The
Respondent no.3 seems to be under misconception that
2 (2013) 11 SCC 58
8 WP2590.00 (J).odt
if the Petitioner's appointment is cancelled, in this
petition itself the Respondent no.3 will get a relief that
the Respondent no.3 be considered having been
appointed since the year 1996. The Respondent no.3
thereafter has been duly selected in the year 2010 and it
is in the year 2010 that the Respondent no.3 has entered
the services of the Respondent no.2-University.
13. Therefore, as and when, which is imminent,
that the Respondent no.3 is promoted to the post of
Reader all that will remain is the inter se seniority
between the Petitioner and the Respondent no.3.
Therefore, dismissal of the petition confirming the order
of the Hon'ble Chancellor will not result in granting any
relief to the Respondent no.3 per se. In that context the
appointment of the Petitioner will have to be seen.
14. As regards the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma
(supra), it was a case where the Central Administrative
Tribunal had quashed and set aside the show cause notice
issued by the NCT of Delhi terminating the services of
the candidate for not possessing the requisite eligibility.
There the candidate was appointed provisionally making
it clear that the appointment was temporary on
provisional basis on verification. It was stated that if it
was found that the information was concealed or
misrepresented the appointment would be terminated.
The candidate therein was dismissed on the ground that
he had obtained the employment by misrepresentation.
It is in that context the Supreme Court observed that the
9 WP2590.00 (J).odt
appointment was void ab-initio and the Courts should
not protect an illegal appointment. Such are not the facts
in the case at hand. Furthermore, had it been this
position, the Division Bench in the case of Maharashtra
Federation of University and College Teachers
Organization (supra) also could not have protected the
services of the teachers therein. It is correct that the
circumstances in the case of Maharashtra Federation of
University and college Teachers Organization (supra) of
non-availability of suitable candidates are not present this
case, but the fact remains that it is not impossible to take
a view which may benefit a non NET-SET candidate
who has been working for a long period of time.
15. In the present case, the cut-off date for
submitting the Ph.D. thesis for non NET-SET candidates
was 31 December 1993. The Petitioner submitted thesis
in the year 1994 and was awarded Ph.D. degree in the
year 1995. Thereafter the Petitioner has acquired the
NET-SET qualification in July-2000 and therefore
though the Petitioner did not possess the requisite NET-
SET qualification on the date of advertisement, for last
more than two decades the Petitioner is teaching the
subjects with both Ph.D. degree and NET-SET
qualifications.
16. Considering these facts, we are of the opinion
therefore that, in light of passage of time; the acquisition
of the qualifications by the Petitioner; the decision of the
Division Bench in the case of Maharashtra Federation of
10 WP2590.00 (J).odt
University and College Teachers Organization (supra);
and that the Respondent no.3 is also now serving with
the Respondent no.2-University, the Hon'ble Chancellor
should have a re-look at the impugned order to decide as
to whether its enforcement is necessary as on today.
17. We may also note that the Petitioner and the
Respondent no.3 exchanged certain settlement terms
amongst themselves as to how they can resolve the issue.
Ofcourse, the Respondent no.2-University cannot be
bound by the inter se arrangement however the Hon'ble
chancellor, who heads the Respondent no.2-University
should note that the Respondent no.2-University had
granted promotion to the Petitioner during the pendency
of this writ petition.
18. With these observations, the matter be placed
before the Hon'ble Chancellor for further course of
action. The learned Assistant Government Pleader states
that the copy of the order and necessary records would be
placed before the Hon'ble Chancellor. Though we do
not intend to fix a time limit for the Hon'ble Chancellor,
since the issue is pending since long, the Hon'ble
Chancellor may consider if it is possible to take a decision
within a period of three months.
19. Put this petition under the caption 'For
Directions' on the weekly board in the week
commencing 1 August 2022."
11 WP2590.00 (J).odt
3. The matter was referred to the Hon'ble Chancellor for
reconsideration. Hon'ble Chancellor forwarded a communication to the
office of Government Pleader, Nagpur. By the said communication, the
Hon'ble Chancellor noted down certain facts from the date of filing of
the petition till the date of passing of the above order and made it clear
that nothing has left to be decided by the Hon'ble Chancellor and that
the Court should give its final verdict on the order passed by the then
Hon'ble Chancellor in the year 2000. In view of this communication,
the matter was listed before us for final hearing.
4. We have heard Mr. M. G. Bhangde, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. A.B. Patil, learned advocate for the petitioner,
Mr. S. Y. Deopujari, learned advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2, Mr.
A.C. Dharmadhikari, learned advocate for respondent no.3, Mr. K. L.
Dharmadhikari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
no.4 and Mr. A.S. Agrawal, learned advocate for respondent no.5.
Perused the record and proceedings.
5. Mr. Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate submitted that in
view of the communication received from the office of the Hon'ble
12 WP2590.00 (J).odt
Chancellor, this Court would be required to give finality to the earlier
order passed by this Court on 22.04.2022. Learned Senior Advocate
submitted that this Court vide order dated 22.04.2022 has decided the
material question in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the same
could operate as res judicata. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that
despite the communication from the Hon'ble Chancellor, the position
obtained on record on the date of the order dated 22.04.2022 still holds
good. On this point learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the
decision in the case of C. V. Rajendran and another .vs. N. M.
Muhammed Kunhi, reported in (2002) 7 SCC 447, wherein it is held
that when the order passed at an earlier stage of the same proceeding, if
allowed to become final, the principle of res-judicata would become
applicable. It is held that the other side in the absence of challenge to the
said order attaining finality, cannot be allowed to challenge the same in
the subsequent proceeding.
6. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that dismissal of this
petition would not extend any benefit to the respondent no.3 inasmuch
as in absence of filing of any substantive petition by the respondent no.3,
13 WP2590.00 (J).odt
the respondent no.3 would not automatically get appointed to the post.
Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the Hon'ble Chancellor had
rejected such request made by respondent no.3 vide petition dated
02.04.1997, in the month of July-2000. A copy of the said order is
placed on record. Learned Senior Advocate took us through the copy of
the order and submitted that the Hon'ble Chancellor has rejected the
prayer of the respondent no.3 for her appointment in the place of the
petitioner, in case appointment of the petitioner is declared as void.
Hon'ble Chancellor, it is pointed out, has held that he has no power to
issue such a direction to the University to appoint respondent no.3 to the
vacant post.
7. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the Government
Resolution, dated 18.10.2001 was issued by the Government Of
Maharashtra to take care of all those lecturers who were appointed
between19.09.1991 and 11.12.1999, without clearing SET examination
on the date of their appointment. Learned Senior Advocate, relying on
this Government Resolution, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to
get the benefit of this G.R. and the said benefit cannot be denied on the
14 WP2590.00 (J).odt
basis of the defence of the respondent no.3. Learned Senior Advocate in
this regard placed heavy reliance on the decision in the case of Rakesh
Bakshi and another .vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others,
reported in (2019) 3 SCC 511. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that
on facts, the law laid down in this decision by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court would be squarely applicable to the facts of this case. In the case of
Rakesh Bakshi an another (supra), the selection and appointment was set
aside on the ground that the candidates did not possess the requisite
qualification on the cut-off date. Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering
the peculiar facts and more particularly the fact that due to efflux of time
neither the appellant nor the respondent would be in a position to secure
selection, was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Division Bench
of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court setting aside the selection and
appointment. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that in this case
almost 22 years have rolled by. In the meantime, the petitioner was
promoted to the post of Reader. Learned Senior Advocate submitted
that the respondent no.3 was duly selected in the year 2010 as a Lecturer
in the respondent no.2- University. She is also likely to be promoted to
the post of Reader. Learned Senior Advocate, therefore, submitted that
15 WP2590.00 (J).odt
the decision in the case of Rakesh Bakshi and another (supra) would
squarely apply to the case of the petitioner.
8. Learned Advocate Mr. Deopujari appearing for respondent
nos.1 and 2 supported the order passed by the Hon'ble Chancellor.
Learned advocate submitted that considering the rival contentions, the
Court may pass appropriate order to meet the ends of justice.
9. Learned Advocate Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari appearing for
the respondent no.3 submitted that in the teeth of the order of
respondent no.1 - Hon'ble Chancellor, the petitioner is not entitled to
get any relief as sought for in this petition. Learned advocate submitted
that the petitioner had admitted before the Chancellor that he was not
duly qualified and as such eligible to be appointed as a Lecturer. Learned
Advocate pointed out that the respondent no.3 was duly qualified and
fully eligible for being appointed as a Lecturer, but with an oblique
motive, she was denied the appointment. Learned advocate submitted
that the decision of Hon'ble Chancellor, even if tested on the anvil of
facts and the law does not warrant interference. Learned advocate
16 WP2590.00 (J).odt
submitted that the appointment of the petitioner being illegal, cannot be
protected. The learned advocate, in order to buttress his submissions,
relied upon the following decisions :
1] Union of India and another .vs. Ravi Shankar and another,
reported in (1998) 3 SCC 146
2] State of Haryana and others .vs. Anurag Shrivatava and another
reported in (1998) 8 SCC 399
3] Pramod Kumar .vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission
and others, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 153
4] University Grants Commission and others .vs. Sadhana Chaudhary
and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 536.
10. Mr. K.L.Dharmadhikari, learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for respondent no.4 and learned advocate Mr. Agrawal
appearing for respondent no.5 supported the arguments advanced on
behalf of respondent no.3.
11. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the parties. In our
opinion, the position obtained on record on 22.04.2022, when this
Court made candid observations and recorded finding on important and
relevant issues, would hold good. Despite the non-responsive
communication from respondent no.2, the relevant observations
17 WP2590.00 (J).odt
touching to the merits of the controversy, recorded vide order dated
22.04.2022, would indicate that the petitioner cannot be denied the
relief. The relevant observations and findings with regard to the
subsequent acquisition of the qualification, promotion of the petitioner
as a Reader, appointment of respondent no.3 as a Lecturer in 2010 and
the likely promotion of respondent no.3 as a Reader, cannot be disturbed
even after fresh hearing, in the teeth of the material placed on record. It
is further pertinent to mention that the observations of this Court as
above to the effect that by rejecting this petition, the respondent no.3
would not get an automatic appointment to the said post, also holds
good in the fact situation. In our opinion, in the backdrop of the
observations made in paragraph nos. 13 to 16 of the order dated
22.04.2022 and on appreciation of the rival submissions, we are
constrained to observe that we are not persuaded on the basis of the
available material to take a different view of the matter. In fact, we
reiterate that in the backdrop of the facts obtained on record, the view
taken in paragraph nos.13 to 16 is the only possible view and the same
needs to be followed for the purpose of deciding this petition finally. It
is to be noted that applicability of principle of res-judicata may not be
18 WP2590.00 (J).odt
strictly applicable in this case in view of the nature of the order and facts
of the case. A request was made to the Hon'ble Chancellor by making
observation and recording a finding to give relook to the controversy.
Hon'ble Chancellor did not deem it proper to reconsider his order.
Hon'ble Chancellor requested this Court to decide the matter on merits.
On appreciation of the material on record, we are of the opinion that the
observations made and findings recorded on all the relevant aspects
mentioned in paragraphs 13 to 16 of the order dated 22.04.2022, hold
good.
12. There is one more additional ground pressed into service by
the petitioner, relying on the Government Resolution dated 18.10.2001.
This G.R. dated 18.10.2001 was not part of the record when the order
dated 22.04.2022 was passed by this Court. The communication
received from the office of the Hon'ble Chancellor would indicate that
this GR dated 18.10.2001 was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble
Chancellor. Initial order passed by the Hon'ble Chancellor holding that
the selection of the petitioner was not in accordance with law, is dated
10.07.2000. Admittedly, the GR dated 18.10.2001 was issued after
19 WP2590.00 (J).odt
passing of the order dated 10.07.2000. It is pertinent to mention at this
stage that after receipt of the communication from Hon'ble Chancellor,
the petitioner filed additional affidavit on 23.08.2022 and the GR dated
18.10.2001. It is stated in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner
that his case is covered by the GR dated 18.10.2001. We have perused
this GR. This GR clearly records that all the Lecturers, who are
appointed between 19.09.1991 and 11.12.1999 in aided and non-aided
colleges and institutions by the competent Selection Committee shall not
be discontinued, if they qualify NET-SET examination till December-
2003. It is undisputed that the petitioner has cleared SET examination
conducted by the Pune University in July-2000. This fact has been
stated by the petitioner in his additional affidavit filed on 09.01.2001.
The communication received from the Hon'ble Chancellor would
indicate that this GR was not brought to his notice nor considered by
him while declining to accept the suggestion of this Court to relook into
the issue. Perusal of the GR would further show that the protection has
been granted on the conditions stipulated in the GR. Therefore, in our
opinion, the benefits of this GR cannot be denied to the petitioner on
the ground that on the relevant date, the respondent no.3 was fully
20 WP2590.00 (J).odt
qualified and eligible to be appointed as a Lecturer. In our view, the
observations made and findings recorded touching the merits vide order
dated 22.04.2022 would also not permit us to deny the benefit of the
GR dated 18.10.2001 to the petitioner. If the facts obtained on record in
this case and the GR dated 18.10.2001 are considered in proper
perspective, it would crystalize and settle the issue. In the backdrop of
the crystalized issue, the proposition of law laid down in the case of
Rakesh Bakshi and another (supra) would be applicable to the facts of
the present case.
13. There is one more ground for not denying the relief in
favour of the petitioner. Respondent no.3 by way of an appeal, dated
02.04.1997, submitted to the Hon'ble Chancellor, had made two fold
request. The first request was to terminate the appointment of the
petitioner as a Lecturer in Molecular Biology subject and second request
was to appoint respondent no.3 in place of the petitioner being duly
qualified and eligible for appointment as a Lecturer with her name being
at Serial No.2 on the Waiting List. The petition of the respondent no.3
with regard to the termination of the petitioner was allowed, however the
21 WP2590.00 (J).odt
petition seeking her appointment in place of the petitioner was rejected
by the Hon'ble Chancellor by the order passed in July-2000. It is
pertinent to note at this stage that respondent no.3 had filed substantive
petition being Writ Petition No. 1138/1998 for setting aside
appointment of the petitioner and for a direction to appoint her as a
Lecturer in the Molecular Biology subject. The said petition was
disposed of on 22.10.1999. It is observed in this order that the appeal
filed by the respondent no.3 was pending before the Hon'ble Chancellor
and respondent no.3 would be at liberty to challenge the decision, if any,
passed by the Hon'ble Chancellor in accordance with law. As stated
above, the Hon'ble Chancellor decided the appeal of respondent no.3 in
July-2000 against her. Respondent no.3 did not file any substantive
petition challenging this order passed by the Hon'ble Chancellor in
July-2000 and also seeking an order and direction for her appointment
in place of the petitioner. It is to be noted that in view of the candid
observations of the Hon'ble Chancellor, made in the order passed in
July-2000, it would become crystal clear that as on today, the respondent
no.3 would not be entitled to get herself appointed in place of the
petitioner. Similarly, no direction can be issued in this petition for
22 WP2590.00 (J).odt
appointment of the respondent no.3 in place of the petitioner. In our
view, therefore, this is one more circumstance to make the decision in
Rakesh Bakshi's case (supra) applicable to the case of the petitioner.
14. This Court (Coram: Nitin Jamdar and Anil L. Pansare, JJ.)
in the order dated 22.04.2022 has considered the decision in the case of
Sadhana Chaudhary and others (supra) and the decision in the case
Rakesh Kumar Sharma .vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, reported in
(2013) 11 SCC 58. Relying upon the decision in the case Sadhana
Chaudhary and others (supra), this Court has recorded a finding that the
condition with regard to the cut-off date could not be said to be arbitrary.
This Court has also considered the applicability of the decision in
Rakesh Kumar Sharma's case (supra) and held that the same would not
be applicable to the case of the respondent no.3 in the fact situation
obtained on record. Same is the proposition of law in the case of Pramod
Kumar (supra) ; Anurag Shrivastava and another (supra) ; and Ravi
Shankar and another (supra). In our view, therefore, the proposition of
law laid down in these cases would be of no help and assistance to the
case of the respondent no.3.
23 WP2590.00 (J).odt
15. We accordingly, conclude that the petitioner, who has been
serving for last 22 years, cannot be denied the relief. Denial of relief to
the petitioner would amount to miscarriage of justice. Denial of relief to
the petitioner would not entail any benefit to the respondent no.3. The
respondent no.3 has been gainfully employed. The case of the petitioner
would be squarely covered by the Government Resolution dated
18.10.2001. The petitioner fulfills the necessary conditions with regard
to acquisition of the necessary qualification in terms of the GR dated
18.10.2001. Therefore, the order passed by Hon'ble Chancellor cannot
be sustained. The petition deserves to be allowed.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a), which reads as follows :
"(a) by an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, including the
writ of certiorari, quash and set aside the order dated 10.07.2000
of the respondent no.1, the Hon'ble Chancellor, Amravati
University, directing the Vide Chancellor of the respondent no.2
Amravati University to terminate the appointment of the
petitioner as a Lecturer in Molecular Biology in the Department
of Bio Technology of the Amravati University (Annexure-XIII),
and the consequent notice of termination dated 17.07.2000 issued
by the respondent no.2 Amravati University to the petitioner,
seeking to terminate his services in the aforesaid post, with effect
24 WP2590.00 (J).odt
from 16.08.2000 (Annexure-XIV) and further direct the
respondent no.2 Amravati University, to continue the petitioner
in the post of Lecturer in Molecular Biology in its Department of
Bio Technology ;"
17. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
( G. A. SANAP, J. ) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
Diwale
Digitally signed byPARAG
PRABHAKARRAO DIWALE
Signing Date:21.11.2022
15:10
