1 wp-5566-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5566 OF 2010 Mr. Yashwant Raghu Shingade .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar for petitioner. Mr. Samir Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. OCTOBER 07, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Bandiwadekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner who is aggrieved by the order of termination dated 27/8/2007 and as confirmed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) by dismissing O.A. No. 703 of 2007. 2. The petitioner has passed Higher Secondary Examination with optional subjects in Crop Science. In response to the proclamation issued by the Agricultural Department of Government of Maharashtra in February, 2 wp-5566-10 2004 for appointment to the post of Krushisevak, he submitted an application and came to be appointed for the said post vide appointment order dated 16/8/2004 and on a consolidated salary of Rs.2500/- per month. This appointment was under the scheme of Krushisevak, which contemplated that initially the appointment would be for one year and subject to satisfactory performance would be continued for a period of three years. On completion of three years successful period, the Krushisevak would be regularized in service subject to availability of vacancies. He joined the posting given to him at Khed. However, by order dated 27/8/2007 his appointment was discontinued on the ground that he did not meet the minimum educational qualifications prescribed. The order dated 27/8/2007 states that the subjects – L4, L5 and L6 could not be called as vocational courses. 3. The petitioner, therefore, approached the MAT in O.A. No. 703 of 2007 and by the impugned Judgment dated 15/6/2009 the application came to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Bandiwadekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the HSC mark-sheet of the petitioner and it shows 3 wp-5566-10 that there were two compulsory subjects of 100 marks each and there were four optional subjects of 100 marks each. From the four optional subjects, three subjects’ index numbers were shown as L4, L5 and L6 which mean crop science s as per the list of subject course for the HSC Examination which is also placed on record. The list of subject course for the HSC Examination has number of optional subjects in different groups like Occupational Orientation, Vocational Subjects etc. The Vocational Subjects fall in the Technical Group, Commercial Group, Fishery Group and Para Medical Group etc. Under the Commercial Group, there are also other subjects like Animal Science and Dairying, Farm Mechanics, Crop Science and Horticulture etc. In the proclamation published in the newspaper in February, 2004, the minimum qualifications for the post of Krushisevak were as under:- (a) Graduation in Agricultural Science recognized University; (b) HSC Examination with Agricultural Vocational Courses; and (c) Two years agricultural diploma, recognized by the State Government. 4 wp-5566-10 5. The State Government noticed that the subjects which were under the head “minimum competency vocational subjects” cannot be equated with vocational subjects and the subjects L4, L5 and L6 which were part of the HSC Examination passed by the petitioner were from the category of minimum competency vocational subjects. As per the appointing authority, the petitioner did not have the requisite qualifications because in HSC Examination he did not pass any vocational subject from the optional group. This opinion of the Agricultural Department has been accepted by the Tribunal and for justified reasons. The Tribunal held that the minimum competency vocational course i.e. Crop Science cannot be accepted to be equivalent to the vocational course in the HSC Examination and more particularly subject Code Nos. L4, L5 and L6 which were in the category of minimum competency vocational course could not be said to be equal to the vocational subjects B2 to B5 from Agricultural Group. This finding of the Tribunal cannot be termed as erroneous and it is in any case well settled that the academic matters should be left to the competent authorities. Mr. Bandiwadekar invited our attention to the recommendations submitted by the Director, Vocational Education, Government of Maharashtra on 13/6/2007. That recommendation may be 5 wp-5566-10 applicable for future as and when accepted, but the fact remains that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications for his appointment to the post of Krushisevak and, therefore, the order dated 27/8/2007 has been rightly confirmed by the Tribunal. 6. Hence the petition fails at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)