1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2259 OF 2008 Rajan G. Lakule, Occ.Service, R/o.B-5, Comnath Sawarkar Road, Dombivali (E), District Thane. Petitioner VERSUS 1. University of Mumbai through the Registrar, University of Mumbai, Mumbai. 2. The Deputy Registrar, University of Mumbai, Mumbai. 3. The Vice Chancellor, University of Mumbai, Mumbai. 4. The Registrar, University of Mumbai, Mumbai. 5. Prof. B.N.Mungekar, The Then Hon'ble Vice Chancellor, University of Mumbai, presently working as Member, Planning Commission, Union of India, AB-7, Pandara Road, New Delhi 110 003. 6. Dr. Smt.S.S.Deshmukh, The learned Nominee of the Chancellor, Ex-Vice Chancellor, University of Mumbai (Member – Selection Committee), “Samarth Krupa”, Ram Mandir Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai 400 057. 2 7. Dr.Chandrashekhar Prabhu, Expert, (Member Selection Committee, 1602, B-Wing, Sukhada Co-op. Housing Society, Sir Pockanwala Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 018. 8. Shri Atul Desai, Expert, (Member Selection Committee), M/s.Atul Desai and Associates, Atul Desai Consultants Pvt.Ltd, 4th Gazadar Bund Road, Santakruz (W), Mumbai. 9. Shri Sudhakar Dhokane, Expert, (Member Selection Committee), Mumbai. 10. Principal P.N.Gaikwad, Nominee of the Vice Chancellor (B.C.Nominee), (Member Selection Committee), Mumbai. 11. Dr.A.D.Sawant, The then Joint Director of Higher Education, presently Pro Vice Chancellor, University of Mumbai, Mumbai. 12. Prof.N.B.Pasalkar, The then Director of Technical Education, presently Member of MPSC, (Member Selection Committee), Mumbai. 13. Dr.Sudhir Panse, Conveener, Scrutiny Committee, The then Director, B.C.U.D, Mumbai. 14. Dr.S.S.Mantha, Member, Scrutiny Committee, Pro Vice Chancellor, SNDT Womens University, Mumbai. 15. Hon'ble Shri Justice D.G.Deshpande, Former Judge of this Hon'ble Court, Chairman, Fact Finding Committee, 3 Mumbai. 16. Prof.P.P.Amberkar, Architect, Member, Fact Finding Committee, Honorary Director, Rachana Sansad, 278, Shankar Ghanekar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025. 17. The Registrar, Council of Architecture, India Habitat Centre, Core 6-A, 1st Floor, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Respondents Mr.A.V.Anturkar with Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for petitioner. Mr.Rui Rodrigues for respondent no.1. Mr.R.A.Dada, Sr.Counsel with Mr.A.V.Bukhari, Mr.Majoj Gorkhela and Mr.R.L.Nerlekar for respondent no.17 CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND A.A.KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 18th October 2008 JUDGEMENT : (PER : F.I.REBELLO, J.) :- 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner by the present petition seeks to quash and set aside an order passed by the Vice Chancellor, University of Mumbai bearing No.VC/987/OF 2008 dated 10th September 2008. By that order the Vice Chancellor accepted the recommendations of the Fact Finding Committee, 4 which was appointed pursuant to an order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.179 of 2007, based on the Minutes of Order. 3. The petitioner before the Fact Finding Committee contended that he should be considered as a candidate who does not have a Ph.D. Degree but as a candidate who has published research work in referred Journals/ Significant Professional Work which can be considered equivalent to Ph.D. Degree. The report of the Fact Finding Committee and the various contentions, were considered and the Vice Chancellor held that the petitioner does not satisfy the eligibility criteria in the context of the requisite expertise and accordingly held that the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of Sir J.J.College of Architecture, Mumbai is invalid and consequently revoked the order of appointment as Principal. The petitioner by the present petition challenges that order. 4. We may now set out a few facts. The University of Mumbai invited applications for various posts. Amongst them was the post of Principal of Sir J.J.College of Architecture. In terms of the advertisement, this is what was set out :- “Principal (Sir J.J.College of Architecture) 5 (Scale odf pay : 16400-450-20,900-500-22,400/-) (Total starting emoluments Rs.31,440/- p.m.) Qualifications :- i. First Class Bachelor's Degree in Architecture ii. Master's Degree in Architecture/Planning & iii. Ph.D. In Architecture/Planning or published research works in referred Journals/significant professional work which can be considered equivalent to Ph.D. OR i. Bachelor's Degree in Architecture, ii. First Class Master's Degree in Architecture/Planning and iii. Ph.D. In Architecture/Planning or published research work in referred journals/significant professional work which can be considered equivalent to Ph.D. OR i. First Class Bachelor's Degree in Architecture, and ii. Ph.D. In Architcture/Planning. In addition to (i), (ii), (iii) the candidate should be an eminent person in the field. Experience : 15 years experience in Teaching/Practice/Research out of which 5 years must be at the level Professor or above in Architecture/Planning in case the candidate is Ph.D. OR 18 years experience in Teaching/Practice/Research out of which 5 years must be at the level of Professor or above in Architecture/Planning in case the candidate is not Ph.D. Desirable Administrative experience in responsible position. 6 Candidates from Practice with Bachelor's Degree in Architecture/Planning having First Class at either of the level and having done professional work which is significant and with 18 years of professional experience out of which 5 years should be at a Senior Level. Desirable Administrative Experience in a responsible position.” 5. The petitioner pursuant to the said advertisement applied for the post of Principal by his application dated 22nd April 2004. Under qualifications, he has set out that he had obtained First Class Bachelor's Degree in Architecture in 1984, Masters in Architecture by research in 2000 in Institutional Architecture and in 2005 had obtained his Ph.D. in Architecture from Ashwood University, United States. Insofar as experience is concerned, he had set out that he had experience of twenty years in active profession since 1984 till date of application and had done more than 300 projects (housing, industrial, commercial, educational) and had experience of eighteen years in teaching from 1986 till that date. Experience in teaching was shown from October 1993 to October 1997 at AB College, Sangli, from November 2001 to February 2002 at IES Mumbai, from February 2002 to September 2003 at J.J.Mumbai; he also claimed to have six years experience as Assistant Professor/Reader and four years as Principal and that he would 7 be completing one year as Professor at Sir J.J.College. He also set out that he had worked for nine years as Visiting Professor. 6. The petitioner's application was scrutinized by the Scrutiny Committee who found that out of six candidates, five were eligible including the petitioner. The Selection Committee was then constituted. The Selection Committee submitted it's report on 21th June 2004. The Committee gave it's opinion as under :- “... ... ... The Committee after interviewing the candidates on propage after taking into consideration their qualifications, teaching and research experience, publications etc; and also their performance at the interview, unanimously decided to recommend to the Vice- Chancellor, Under Section 78 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, that the following candidate who is suitable be appointed to the post of Principal, Sir J.J.College of Architecture, University of Mumbai in the pay scale of Rs.16,400-450-29,900-500-22,400/- on probation for a period of two years. (1) Shri Lakule Rajan G.” The report of the Selection Committee was accepted and the petitioner came to be appointed by communication dated 25th June 2004, as Principal of the Sir J.J.College of Architecture, Mumbai. 8 7. The petitioner claims as a Practicing Architect, though the petitioner was also doing the work of teaching. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Regulations made by the Council of Architecture, namely Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 1983, Regulation No.8(4), provides that the institutions shall encourage the faculty members to involve in professional practice including research. 8. The Council of Architecture has also prescribed Revised Minimum Qualifications and Experience Prescribed for Teaching Posts in Degree Level Technical Institutions. The qualifications as prescribed in 2002 for the post of Principal, are the following :- Sr. No. Cadre Qualification Work Experience (Excluding time period for acquisition of P.G,/Ph.D. Qualification) Qualification & Experience for candidates from Practice 1 ... ... ... ... 2 ... ... ... ... 3 ... ... ... ... 4 ... ... ... ... 9 Sr. No. Cadre Qualification Work Experience (Excluding time period for acquisition of P.G,/Ph.D. Qualification) Qualification & Experience for candidates from Practice 5 Director/ Principal i. First Class Bachelor's Degree in Architecture ii. Master's Degree in Architecture/Planning; and iii. Ph.D. In Architecture/ Planning or published research works in referred journals/ significant professional work, which can be considered equivalent to Ph.D. 15 years experience in Teaching/Practice/Rese arch out of which 5 years must be at the level of Professor or above in Architecture/Planning in case the candidate is Ph,.D. OR 18 years experience in Teaching./Practice/ Research out of which 5 years must be at the level of Professor or above in Architecture/ Planning in case the candidate is not Ph,.D. Candidates from Practice with Bachelor's Degree in Architecture and Master's Degree in Architecture/ Planning having First Class at either of the level and having done professional work which is significant and can be recognised equivalent to Ph,.D. In Architecture/Planning and with 18 years of professional experience, out of which 5 years should be at a Senior Level. Desirable Administrative Experience in a responsible position. The Council of Architecture in exercise of its powers has prescribed the minimum qualifications for teaching posts, including that of Director/Principal. These are similar to what was set out in the advertisement of the University. 9. A candidate, therefore to be eligible, must have obtained First Class either at the level of Bachelor's Degree or Master's Degree and must have also obtained his Ph.D., or published research work in referred journals/ significant professional work which can be considered equivalent to Ph.D.. 10 In addition, the candidate ought to be an eminent person in the field. As far as experience is concerned, the candidate in case he has Ph.D had to have fifteen years experience in teaching/practice/research, out of which five years must be at the level of Professor or above in Architecture/Planning or eighteen years experience in teaching or practice or research out of which five years must be at the level of Professor or above in Architecture/Planning in case the candidate did not have Ph.D.. Desirable was administrative experience in responsible position. Candidates from Practice had to have either Bachelor's Degree in Architecture or Master's Degree in Architecture/ Planning in First Class and having done professional work which is significant and can be recognised as equivalent to Ph,.D., in Architecture/Planning and with 18 years of professional experience, out of which 5 years should be at a Senior Level. Desirable Administrative Experience in a responsible position. The petitioner in his application had mentioned that he was holding Ph.D. in Architecture of Ashwood University, U.S.. 10. One of the candidates who had applied for the posts was the President/Chairman of the Council of Architecture. The Council of 11 Architecture by its Registrar, filed a petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.179 of 2007 wherein it was prayed that the petitioner be removed as Principal of Sir J.J.College of Architecture, as according to the Council of Architecture, the Ph.D. Degree from Ashwood University, U.S. is not recognized. That Degree was obtained in the year 2003. Minutes of Order had been filed on 1st February 2008 and the petition was disposed off in terms of the Minutes of Order. The Minutes of Order provided that a Fact Finding Committee would be constituted to give its findings on the eligibility of the petitioner. Both, the petitioner and the Council of Architecture, were to be heard. 11. Accordingly, the Fact Finding Committee was appointed which consisted of Shri Justice D.G.Deshpande (Retd.) of this Court who acted as Chairman and Professor P.P.Amberkar who acted as a Member of the Committe. The Committee heard both, the petitioner as also the Council of Architecture. On behalf of Council for Architecture, objections were raised insofar as Doctorate Degree from Ashwood University, U.S. The Council of Architecture contended that the petitioner did not possess necessary qualifications apart from the fact that the Doctorate was not recognized. It was also mentioned that the petitioner had never worked as Professor for five 12 years nor he had to his credit, research work in referred journals nor significant professional work which could be considered as equivalent to the Ph.D.. The petitioner before the Committee, in view of the objections, submitted that he was appointed to the said post not because of the Doctorate but because he was possessed off the other necessary qualifications. The Committee queried the petitioner as to which group he belongs. The petitioner replied that he comes in the first group or clause because he held first class B.Arch. degree.. He should not be considered as possessing Doctorate Degree but should be considered under clause (iii) wherein, if the candidate does not have a Ph.D. the candidate should have published research works in referred journals/significant professional work which can be considered equivalent to Ph.D. On further queries he answered that he belongs to category viz. 18 years experience in Teaching/Practice/ Research. After considering various contentions, the Committee held that the petitioner did not possess the Ph.D. Degree at the time of filing of applications and that his professional work has not been ascertained, verified or scrutinized and accepted by any University in the country to be equivalent to Ph.D.. Therefore he cannot claim to be belonging to that category also. Various other contentions were considered and the Committee opined that the selection and appointment of the petitioner was illegal. 13 This report was subsequently accepted by the Vice Chancellor. 12. Replies have been filed on behalf of the University by Krishnammachari Vyankatramani wherein it is set out that the petitioner worked only as In-charge Principal in AB College of Architecture, Sangli from October 1993 to October 1997 i.e. prior to his passing Masters Degree. The petitioner completed his Masters Degree in the year 2000. The In-charge Principalship cannot be allowed to be equated with Professorship. It is further pointed out that certificate dated 31st January 2003 issued by Sangli College reflects that the petitioner's academic designation was that of Assistant Professor which is at par with Reader and below a Professor. Similarly, he worked only for eight months only as a Temporary Professor in Sir J.J.College of Architecture at the time he applied for the post vide application dated 24th April 2004. Reply has also been filed on behalf of College of Architecture setting out that the petitioner was not qualified. 13. At the hearing of this petition on behalf of the petitioner the learned counsel submitted that though the petitioner did not possess Ph.D., 14 he was otherwise qualified having done work equivalent to Ph.D. and in the alternative had done professional work which is significant and had 18 years of professional experience out of which five years at the senior level. 14. We shall now consider the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Apart from the educational qualifications the candidate should be an eminent person in the field having experience of fifteen years of teaching/practice/research out of which five years must be at the level of Professor or above in Architecure/Planning, in case the candidate is Ph.D. or eighteen years experience in teaching/practice/research out of which five years must be at the level of Professor or above in the Architectural/Planning in case the candidate is not Ph.D.. Therefore, even without going into the issue whether petitioner's published work can be considered equivalent to that of Ph.D. the petitioner did not have the requisite experience of five years at the level of Professor or above in Architecture/Planning. The petitioner, therefore, not having five years work experience at the level of Professor, was not eligible to to be considered under that head. 15. The only other contention that has to be considered is whether the petitioner had done professional work which is significant and with eighteen years of professional experience out of which five years should be at the senior level. The petitioner obtained his Bachelors Degree in 1984. 15 According to the information given by the petitioner, he had eighteen years of experience in teaching and twenty years experience in active profession. The petitioner insofar as qualifications and experience in practice, in his application form, apart from setting out that he had twenty years experience in active profession and more than 300 projects (housing, industrial, commercial, educational) did not set out the five years which he has worked at the senior level. No such material was placed before the Fact Finding Committee nor before this Court. Therefore even under the head the petitioner was not eligible. 16. In our opinion, considering decisions, the findings arrived at by the Fact Finding Committee, are findings of fact. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity before the Committee. The Committee on the material placed before it and on assessment of the same has come to the conclusion that the appointment of the petitioner is totally and completely illegal and invalid. The Vice Chancellor in the impugned order has referred to the report of the Fact Finding Committee in extenso and has also noted that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualifications and his shifting position regarding his eligibility. 17. Considering the findings of fact by the Committee and independently on considering the petitioner's qualifications we have also 16 come to the conclusion that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualifications. We are therefore, clearly of the opinion that the challenge by the petitioner to the impugned order fails and accordingly Rule is discharged. 18. Counsel for the petitioner seeks stay of operation of the order. The post is an academic post. Petitioner has been holding the post since 2004. The Fact Finding Committee, consisting of a retired Judge of this Court has arrived at the conclusion, that the petitioner does not possess the qualifications. Independently, we have also come to the same conclusion. Hence petition rejected. (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) mst