1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITTION NO.945/2009 Sanjay Santoshrao Dudhe Vs. State of Mah. and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE AND P.D. KODE, JJ. Order reserved on 13.8.2009. Order pronounced on 20.8.2009. Heard Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Dangre, learned AGP for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. P.B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.4. By this petition, the petitioner challenges communications dated 28.3.2008 and 21.8.2008 of respondent no.3 by which the petitioner has been held not entitled to be Senior Scale and Selection Grade on the ground that he had not passed M. Phil prior to 31.12.1993. The petitioner is serving as Lecturer in respondent no.4 - College since 1996. He appeared for M. Phil examination which was held in May 1993. The result was declared on 22.2.1994. Respondent no.4 submitted proposal to respondent no.3 for placing him in Senior 2 Scale and Selection Grade. By communication dated 28.3.2008 addressed to the Principal of the college respondent no.4 to respondent no.3 informed that since the petitioner had not passed M.Phil examination prior to 31.3.1993 he was not entitled to Senior Scale and Selection Grade. The petitioner made representation to respondent no.3 to the Principal of respondent no.4 College which was rejected by communication dated 21.8.2008 by maintaining the stand taken in Communication dated 28.3.2008. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that indisputably the petitioner had appeared in May 1993 for M. Phil examination and although the result was declared on 22.2.1994, the petitioner cannot be deprived of Senior Scale and Selection Grade since the petitioner is deemed to have passed M. Phil examination prior to 31.12.1993. According to Mr. Kulkarni, the petitioner had no control over the declaration of the result of M. Phil and the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of the selection grade simply on the ground that the result was declared after 31.12.1993. In support of his submissions, Mr. Kulkarni relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Chhotu Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others : (2000) 10 SCC 399. Per contra, Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional 3 Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that in order to be eligible to Senior Scale and Selection Grade the petitioner ought to have passed M. Phil examination prior to 31.12.1993 and since the result of the petitioner was admittedly declared on 22.2.1994 i. e. after 31.12.1993, the petitioner is not eligible for placement in Senior Scale and Selection Grade. Therefore, according to Mrs. Dangre, the communications cannot be faulted. Mrs. Dangre further submitted that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Chhotu Ram (supra) is not applicable in the present case since in the said case the Apex Court was dealing with service matter. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is not in dispute that in order to be eligible for Senior Scale and Selection Grade the lecturer has to pass M. Phil before 31st December 1993. In the present case, admittedly the result was declared on 22.2.1994. Therefore, necessary sequitur is that as on date the petitioner had not passed M. Phil on 31.12.1993. In order to eligible for placement in Senior Scale and Selection Grade passing of M. Phil prior to 31.12.1993 is must. Since the result of the petitioner was not declared prior to 31.12.1993 the petitioner is obviously not entitled to be placed in Senior Scale and Selection 4 Grade. Therefore, we do not find any fault with the impugned communications of respondent no.3. The ratio laid down in Chhotu Ram (supra) relied upon by Mr. Kulkarni is not attracted in the present case inasmuch. In the said case, the appellant had appeared in AMIE (B) Examination held in November 1979 and was declared successful on 3.3.1980. The DPC met in September 1980 declared the appellant ineligible on the ground that he had not been declared successful on the cut off date. There was an administrative order clarifying that eligibility could be determined with reference to date of completion of the examination if result had been declared by the time promotion was considered. The factual matrix in the case of Chhotu Ram is entirely different and as such the ratio of the said case is not of any help to the petitioner. In the present case, indisputably the petitioner had not passed M.Phil examination prior to 31.12.1993. Hence, no fault can be found with the impugned communications. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the present petition. Hence, the petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.