1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.357 OF 2010 Atul Suresh Patil & Ors .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for the petitioners. Smt.A.V.Gondhalekar,Adv.for Respondent no.1. Shri A.B.Girase,Adv.for R.3. .... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & A.A.SAYED,JJ. DATE :20 th OCTOBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, 2 Petition is heard finally. 2] By way of present Petition, the petitioners are challenging the orders dated 24/12/2009, 7/1/2010 and 9/1/2010 issued by respondent no.3 University thereby refusing to grant approval to the appointments of the petitioners. 3] Advertisements were issued by the respondent colleges within the jurisdiction of the respondent no.3 for various posts of Lecturers. The said advertisements were approved by Registrar of the respondent no.3 University on 10/6/2009. In pursuance of the said advertisement, selection process was conducted by the said colleges and the petitioners were appointed on various dates between September 2009 to October 2009. In accordance with the selection of the petitioners, respective colleges had sent the proposals to the respondent no.3 for grant of approval to the petitioners’ 3 appointments. By the impugned communication, the approval was rejected by the University, hence the present petition. 4] Shri Barlinge, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the present petitioners is squarely governed by the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.1489/10 alongwith companion matters and therefore, the present petitioners are also entitled to the same relief. 5] Shri Girase, learned counsel for respondent no.3 University on the contrary, submits that several aspects were not considered, which are required to be taken into consideration by the Division Bench at Nagpur and as such, Review Petition is entertained by the said Bench. 6] The Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur in Writ 4 Petition No.1489/10 vide judgment and order dated 2/7/2010 relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Sharma and another Versus State of Rajasthan and others reported in 2008 (3) S.C.C. 724 has observed thus : “10] From the above, it is clear that the subsequent insertion of compulsory NET/SET qualification by gazette notification dated 11/7/2009 made by University Grants Commission will have to be held to be prospective in its operation since in all these cases the advertisement as per earlier eligibility qualifications were duly approved and sanctioned by the University and were also published well before the cut-off date, namely, 11/7/2009 and at any rate before the last date of application that was to be made pursuant to these advertisement. Last date of application as per advertisement is a crucial date in accordance with the law laid down 5 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” 7] It can thus clearly be seen that the Division Bench in unequivocal terms has held that the necessity to have NET/SET qualification will have to be construed as prospective in nature and only effective from July 2009. The Court has held that what is crucial is the date of advertisement. In the present case also undisputedly, on the date of advertisement, NET/SET was not the compulsory qualification. Not only this but perusal of the Minutes of the 471 st meeting of the UGC held on 12/8/2010 would also fortify the case of the petitioners. The copy of the said Minutes are produced by the petitioners. The same are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. It would be relevant to refer to relevant part of Resolution No.3 of the said meeting which reads thus: [iii] The Commission further resolved that since both the above mentioned Regulations are 6 prospective and not retrospective in nature, therefore, all candidates having M.Phil degree on or before 10 th July 2009 shall remain exempted from the requirement of NET for the purpose of appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor. Further, all candidates who have either obtained Ph.D degree on or before 31 st December, 2009 and such candidates who had registered themselves for Ph.D degree on or before 31 st December 2009 and are subsequently awarded Ph.D degbree shall remain exempted from the requirement of NET for the purpose of appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor.” 8] It can thus be seen that UGC itself has resolved that all the candidates who are possessing M.Phil on or before 1/7/2009 shall remain exempted from the requirement of NET for the purpose of appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners are having a degree of M.Phil before 10/7/2009. The said resolution further exempts the candidates who are having Ph.D degree 7 on or before 31/12/2009 or who have registered themselves for Ph.D degree before 31/12/2009, from the requirement of NET examination. However, that may not be relevant for the purpose of this matter. Suffice it to say that all such candidates who have acquired M.Phil qualification on or before July 2009, shall be exempted from having the requirement of NET qualification. 9] In that view of the matter, since it is an undisputed position that all the petitioners are having M.Phil qualification prior to 10/7/2009 and that in the advertisement, there was no requirement of compulsorily having the qualification of NET/SET, we find that the case of the present petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur Bench cited supra and also by the resolution of the UGC. 10] Rule is therefore, made absolute in terms of pryaer 8 clauses “B” and “C” with no order as to costs. (A.A.SAYED) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp357-10