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 :::
4obtaining 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 :::
