Posted On by &filed under Bombay High Court, High Court.


Bombay High Court
No. A-1 vs Nagpur University on 6 August, 2010
Bench: S.A. Bobde, A. B. Chaudhari
                                                                                 1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                                  
                                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                                          
                              WRIT PETITION  NO. 484 OF 2010.

     Dr. Rakesh s/o Jagdish Ramteke,
     aged about 38 years, R/o Quarter




                                                                         
     No. A-1, Staff Quarters, North
     Maharashtra University Campus,
     Umavi Nagar, Post Box No. 80,




                                                     
     Jalgaon.                        ....                                                     PETITIONER.
                          
                   ....Versus....
                         
     1] Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
        Nagpur University, Nagpur,
        through its Vice Chancellor,
        Near Maharajbagh, Nagpur,
      


     2] Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
   



        Nagpur University, Nagpur,
        through its Registrar,
        Near Maharajbagh, Nagpur,





     3] Principal Secretary, Government of
        Maharashtra, Higher and Technical
        Education Department, Mantralaya,





        Mumbai.                                                                  ......        RESPONDENTS

     Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for petitioner,
     Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 2,
     Mr. T.R. Kankale, A.G.P. for respondent no. 3,


                               CORAM :   S.A. BOBDE & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.

DATED : AUGUST 6, 2010.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:14:57 :::
2

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.A. BOBDE, J.)

1] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned

Counsel for the rival parties by consent.

2] The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to

the respondent No.1 to forthwith issue an appointment order in the

petitioner’s favour for the post of Reader in the department of

Computer Science in Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University

in pursuance of the selection process initiated under advertisement

dated 13.7.2007.

3] In brief, the petitioner’s case is that the petitioner appeared

for interview in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement for the said

post and was selected by the Selection Committee. At selection, one

Shri Pradip Kawaduji Bute was shown at serial no.1 and the petitioner

was shown at serial no.2. Eventually, the said Bute’s appointment

was challenged before the Hon’ble Chancellor of the Nagpur

University, who on 7.8.2009 held that his appointment was not legal

and directed the Vice Chancellor of the respondent no.1 University to

terminate his services as a Reader after giving him one month’s

notice. Bute’s Writ Petition against the order of the Hon’ble

Chancellor was dismissed.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:14:57 :::
3

4] The short contention of the petitioner is that since he was

at serial no.2 in the select list, Bute’s appointment who was at serial

no.1 having been set aside, he should be appointed to the said post

without fresh selection. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the

relevant provision under which the selections and appointments by

the University are made. Section 76 to the extent it is relevant reads

as follows :

“76. Selection and appointment of university

teachers:-

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act,

Statutes and Ordinances, the Vice-Chancellor

shall, till the University Grants Commission’s

scheme or recruitment becomes operative,

appoint according to the order of merit and

recommendations made by the selection

committee, a university teacher.

                     (2)                  .................

                     (3)                  .................





                     (4)                  .................

                     (5)                  .................

                     (6)                  .................

                     (7)                 If, on a petition by any person directly 

affected or suo motu, the Chancellor, after

making, or having made such inquiries or

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:14:57 :::
4

obtaining or having obtained such explanations,

including explanations from the teachers whose

appointments are likely to be affected, as may be

or may have been necessary, is satisfied that the

appointment of a teacher of the university, made

by any authority or officer of the university at any

time was not in accordance with the law at the

time in force, the Chancellor, may, by order,

notwithstanding anything contained in the

contract relating to the conditions of service of

such teacher, direct the Vice-Chancellor to

terminate his appointment after giving him one

month’s notice or one month’s salary in lieu of

such notice, and the Vice-Chancellor shall

forthwith comply and take steps for a fresh

selections to be made. The person whose

appointment has been so terminated shall be

eligible to apply again for the same post.”

The question is, when an appointment made in pursuance of a

selection when set aside by the Chancellor of the University, the next

candidate on the selection list is entitled to be appointed without a

fresh selection ?

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:14:57 :::
5

5] Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel for the

petitioner, relied on Section 76(1) in support of the proposition that

the next person should be appointed. According to the learned

Counsel, the sub-section requires the appointment to be made

according to the order of merit and, therefore, it is necessary for the

Vice-Chancellor to make an appointment of the next person in order

of merit after the appointment of the earlier candidate higher in merit

is set aside.

6] We see no merit in this contention since Section 76(1) of

the Act which undoubtedly requires appointments to be made

according to the order of merit and recommendation made by the

Selection Committee, applies to the initial appointment only and not

to a situation where the said appointment is set aside by an authority

and a fresh appointment is made.

7] We find that, on the other hand, sub-section (7) provides

the modus operandi to be employed after the services of a teacher

are terminated in pursuance of the direction of the Chancellor. The

prescribed procedure is that where a Chancellor directs the Vice-

Chancellor to terminate “the Vice-Chancellor shall forthwith comply

and take steps for a fresh selection to be made”. This clearly

indicates that it is not permissible to appoint the teacher next in the

order of merit and that sub-section (1) applies to the initial

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:14:57 :::
6

appointment.

8] Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel for the

petitioner, relied on a decision of this Court in Syed Iftekhar Ali .vs.

Vice Chancellor, Nagpur University & another : Writ Petition No.

588/86 decided on 26.6.1987 in support of the contention of the

petitioner. However, that decision is not rendered under the existing

Act and can be of no assistance to the petitioner. In the

circumstances, we see no merit in the petition, which is dismissed.

9] We find from the facts of the case that Bute’s services

were terminated by the University on 14.9.2009 in pursuance of the

direction of the Chancellor dated 7.8.2009. The University does not

appear to have issued an advertisement for making a fresh selection

till date. It is highly improper for the University not to have done so.

Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that this is due to the fact that the Vice-Chancellor of the

respondent University who was holding charge till July, 2010 is the

same Vice-Chancellor against whom Hon’ble Chancellor had passed

severe strictures while setting aside Bute’s appointment. According

to Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is

purely due to this fact that steps have not been taken. The petitioner

has not joined the said Vice-Chancellor as a party by name. Hence,

we are not inclined to go into the allegations of mala fide inaction.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:14:57 :::
7

We, however, consider it appropriate to direct that immediate steps

should be taken to initiate and complete the selection process at the

earliest and not later than six months from today.

10] With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands

dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.

JUDGE.

                        ig                                                                 JUDGE.

     J. 
                      
      
   






                                                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:14:57 :::
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.152 seconds.