1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2374 OF 2009 Vedwati w/o Panditrao Ladke, R/o- C/o- Advocate Ardhepure, "Ardhapure Niwas", Near Nageshwar Temple, Degloor, Taluka-Degloor, District-Nanded. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The Registrar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, 2) Bharti d/o Balbhimraj Gore, R/o- C/o- Dr. Balbhimraj Gore, F-11, Sudarshan Park, Vedant Nagar, Opp. M.I.D.C. Office, Aurangabad-431 001. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.Pradeep Deshmukh Advocate i/b. Mr. H.A. Joshi Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs.R.R. Mane Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.R.N. Dhorde Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... 2 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 16TH FEBRUARY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The first submission pressed before us is that the Respondent No.2 who has been appointed in the post of Reader, did not qualify the minimum five years experience of teaching and/or research. The argument is completely ill-advised. Clause B of the advertisement reads thus: "B] READER: Good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. In addition to these, candidates who join from outside the university system, shall also possess atleast 55% of the marks or an equivalent 3 grade of B in the 7 point scale with letter grades O,A,B,C,D,E & F at the Master's degree level. Five years of experience of teaching and/or research, excluding the period spent for obtaining the research degrees and has made some mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula." 3. The second paragraph of Clause B stipulates that the experience ought to be of five years of teaching and/or research. It is not in dispute that the Respondent No.2 was serving with three different institutions during the relevant period and was engaged as Lecturer for teaching in those institutions. The argument, however, is that the Respondent No.2 was appointed on ad-hoc basis and not on regular post. Going by the plain language 4 of the advertisement, it is not possible to sustain the grievance of the Petitioner in as much as all that it provides is that "the candidate must have five years experience of teaching" and not five years experience of teaching during regular appointment or permanent post. We cannot re-write the conditions provided in the advertisement. In other words, there is no force in this grievance. 4. The counsel for the Petitioner, however, submits that the University has relaxed the requirement of minimum six years of experience of teaching as is provided by the University Grants Commission and instead, provided for five years teaching experience in the impugned advertisement. This has been done to accommodate particular candidate such as Respondent No.2 herein. There is no force even in this submission. The Respondent No.2 in any case possesses more than six years of experience of teaching if her service rendered in three different institutions for the relevant 5 period is to be reckoned. Thus understood, it does not take the matter any further for the Petitioner. 5. The next argument of the Petitioner is that the Respondent No.2 does not possess doctoral degree in Modern Prose or Linguistics or Critical Theory and in absence thereof was ineligible for being considered for appointment. This submission is in the context of the stipulation in the advertisement against the two posts of Reader in subject Hindi. Against the said column, it is mentioned that the specialization should be in Modern Prose or Linguistics or Critical Theory. In the present case, however, the Respondent No.2 admittedly has equivalent published work in Modern Prose, Linguistics as well as Critical Theory. The requirement under the advertisement is good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. The expression 'equivalent published work' is used in the alternative to the doctoral degree. The fact that 6 the Respondent No.2 does not possess doctoral degree in Modern Prose or Linguistics or Critical Theory would not render her ineligible for being considered for appointment. The fact that the Respondent No.2 possesses equivalent published work in Modern Prose as well as Linguistics and Critical Theory, has been considered by the Selection Committee which consisted of experts appointed in conformity with the provisions of the extant Regulation. The said Selection Committee has scrutinized the published work of the Respondent No.2 and has found it to be in conformity with the requirement of a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. In that view of the matter, even the second grievance of the Petitioner does not merit any interference. 6. It is lastly contended that the Respondent No. 2 has been appointed on account of the influence exerted by her father who was working with the Respondent No.1 University as Head of the Department. In the first place, the father of the 7 Respondent No.2 has not been named as party Respondent. Moreover, it is well established position that bias cannot be alleged against the entire University. The persons who were bias in favour of the Respondent No.2 or against the Petitioner ought to be named as party Respondent. That has not been done in the present case. On this count alone, the allegation of mala fide contended in Paragraph 8 of the Petition cannot be looked into. 7. In any case, the Respondent No.1 University, on affidavit has denied the statement made by the Petitioner that the father of the Respondent No.2 was working with the University as Head of the Department. Moreover, the Respondent No.2 has also placed on record documents to support that position and has asserted that at no point of time her father was working with Respondent No.1 University. Suffice it to observe that the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Writ Petition are irresponsible and unsubstantiated. 8 Accordingly, there is no substance even in this grievance. 8. Taking any view of the matter, this Petition is devoid of merits, hence the same is dismissed. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] asb/FEB10/wp2374.09