: 1 : wp.2683.2011 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2683 OF 2011 Dilip Krishnaji Kulkarni .. Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.G. Deshmukh with Abhijeet Kandarkar for the Petitioner Mr.S.K. Shinde, Addl. G.P. With Mr.C.R. Sonawane, AGP, for Resp. Nos.1 & 2 Mr.R.A. Rodrigues for AICTE Mr.A.V. Borwankar i/b V.D. Borwankar for Resp. No.4 CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: DECEMBER 2, 2011 P.C.: 1. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. The Assistant Director (Technical) from the Directorate of Technical Education has filed affidavit in reply. Though the petition originally challenged the Government Resolution dated 25.2.2011 and more particularly the conditions set out therein while enhancing the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years for the college teachers, the said G.R. dated 25.2.2011 was replaced by the Government of Maharashtra by the subsequent G.R. dated 5.3.2011 and this new G.R. has been : 2 : wp.2683.2011 challenged by the Petitioner by amending the petition. 3. By consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally. 4. In Writ Petition No.2093 of 2011 and other connected petitions the challenge to the G.R. dated 5.3.2011 was considered by us and vide our common judgment dated 30.9.2011, we allowed the petitions partly while holding that clauses 11(1), 11(3) and 11(4) of the said G.R. did not suffer from any infirmities/unconstitutionality. However, we directed by way of exception, for the limited period of 31.3.2014, to place the cases of the assistant professors/lecturers who do not possess a Ph.D. Degree but have received the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme, before the performance review committee so that the said committee shall assess their performance as per the parameters set out in the said judgment for deciding their retention beyond the age of 60 years. We have also directed that for the post of assistant professors / lecturers, the performance assessment committee shall consist of : (i) Pro Vice Chancellor/Director of BCUD of the concerned University – Chairman (ii) Head of the Department of the concerned subject University – Member : 3 : wp.2683.2011 (iii) Principal of the concerned college – Member (iv) Expert in the concerned subject nominated by the Vice Chancellor – Member (v) Joint Director of Higher Education of the concerned University – Member (vi) Controller of Examinations of the concerned University – Member Secretary 5. We had also directed that the Review Committee shall consider the cases of all those lecturers who retired on or after 28.2.2011 on completion of 60 years of age. The Government of Maharashtra has issued a fresh resolution pursuant to the directions referred to hereinabove. 6. Mr.Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that the petitioner retired on 31.3.2011 as a Lecturer from a Polytechnic College and such lecturers are also covered by the G.R. dated 5.3.2011. The Petitioner has not been given the benefit of enhanced age of retirement though he is eligible and he has not heard from the authorities concerned after our judgement dated 30.9.2011 and the subsequent resolution issued by the State Government. 7. The petitioner holds the qualifications of B.Sc. with first class and M.Sc. with a second class from the University of Pune and he : 4 : wp.2683.2011 came to be appointed as a Lecturer for the first time with Respondent No.4 college on 2.8.1978 and his appointment was approved by the appropriate authority as he is a duly qualified teacher. As per the corrigendum dated 14.5.2010 issued by the All India Council for Technical Education, the qualifications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Technical / Engineering Institutes have been set out and the petitioner holds those qualifications. From the post of Lecturer, he had moved up and was also appointed as In-Charge Principal on a number of occasions. He claims that he had a satisfactory service record. It has also been pointed out that he was given the senior payscale w.e.f. 17.12.2000. Our attention has also been invited to the service record of the petitioner during the last five years and he has been graded “excellent (A)” in his annual confidential reports. We are, therefore, satisfied that his case falls squarely within the directions issued by us so that the performance review committee will have to consider his case even though he does not hold a Ph.D. Degree. There is no material placed before us to point out that the petitioner is not eligible for being considered by the performance review committee for being retained in service till the age of 62 years. 8. Hence, we direct the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to take all : 5 : wp.2683.2011 appropriate steps to place the petitioner’s case before the performance review committee consisting of the members as noted hereinabove within two weeks from today and Respondent No.1 shall communicate the final decision to the petitioner for his continuation upto the age of 62 years within a period of 4 weeks from today. 9. Rule is made absolute accordingly in terms of the above directions. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)