1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5274 OF 2010 (DR. PRADEEP BAPURAOJI DAHIKAR..VS.. HON’BLE CHANCELLOR & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.P.B. Patil, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. V.A. Thakare, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. S.S. Ghate, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 09, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor, Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University on 16th September, 2010 in a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 challenging the appointment of respondent No.3 on the post of Reader in Electronics in Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur (herein after referred to as the “Nagpur University” for the purpose of brevity). 3. The few facts giving rise to the writ petition and to the controversy in question are stated thus : An advertisement / employment notice was issued in daily newspaper on 13th July, 2007 calling applications for appointment on the post of Professors and Readers in various subjects in Nagpur University. Here, we 2 are concerned with the post of 'Reader' and specially the post of Reader in the subject of Electronics. The petitioner as well as respondent No.3 had applied along with other candidates for appointment on the post of Reader. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 was not eligible to be appointed on the post of Reader in Electronics as he had not secured post graduation degree in the subject of Electronics as per the eligibility criteria/ qualifications. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 had a post graduate degree in Physics and had also secured a doctoral degree in the subject of Physics and hence, was not eligible for appointment on the post of Reader in Electronics. Since respondent No.3 was also called for the interview, the petitioner made several representations to the University, but the University, by an order dated 28.11.2008 appointed respondent No.3 on the post of Reader in Electronics. Being aggrieved by the said appointment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Chancellor under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act. The learned Chancellor, however, by the impugned order dated 16th September, 2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and held that the appointment of respondent No.3 on the post of Reader in Electronics was just and proper. 4. Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the eligibility qualification prescribed by the Nagpur University required a masters degree in the concerned subject and since the respondent No.3 did not possess a masters degree in the concerned subject and the advertisement also did not provide for any relaxation of the eligibility qualifications, the University committed a serious error in appointing the respondent No.3 on the post of Reader in Electronics. It is submitted that the petitioner possesses a 3 masters degree in electronics and also possesses a doctoral degree in the same subject and hence, was duly qualified to be appointed on the post of Reader in the subject of Electronics. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the respondent No.3 neither possess a post graduate degree in Electronics nor a doctoral degree in Electronics, he was not eligible for seeking appointment on the post of Reader in Electronics. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment reported in (1990)3 SCC 655 (District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagram S.W.R.S. Society Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi) to substantiate his submission that unless an advertisement clearly states that the qualification is relaxable, an appointment made by relaxing the qualification on the ground of non-eligibility of better qualified person would amount to fraud on public. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Chancellor had in yet another petition filed before him under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act held that the eligibility criteria has to be adhered to and there cannot be any relaxation in regard to the eligibility criteria unless the advertisement prescribes so. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this view of the learned Chancellor was confirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3674/2009 decided on 14th September, 2009. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that merely because the respondent No.3 was appointed on the post of Lecturer in Electronics in the year 1988 in view of the non-eligibility of candidate having post graduate degree in the subject of Electronics, it cannot be said that the respondent No.3 would be eligible for appointment on the post of Reader in Electronics as he has been teaching the subject of Electronics for more than 20 years. 4 5. Shri Kulkarni the learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the order passed by the Chancellor and also the order passed by the University appointing the respondent No.3 on the post of Reader by the order dated 28.11.2008. It is submitted on behalf of respondent No.2 that the eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of Reader merely provided for a good academic record and a doctoral degree or equivalent published work for an insider or a person from the University system. According to the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, it is only in case of a candidate from outside the university system that a masters degree in the concerned subject with at least 55% marks is required. In the instant case, according to the learned counsel for respondent No.2, respondent No.3 was working in the university system and was an insider and thus, there was no necessity for such a candidate to possess a masters degree in the concerned subject i.e. Electronics. According to the learned counsel for respondent No.2, the eligibility criteria is divided into two parts. The first part prescribes the main eligibility qualification for a candidate within the university system and that part merely requires a good academic record with doctoral degree or equivalent published work. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent No.2 that the second part of the eligibility qualifications deals with an outsider or a candidate outside the university system and it is only in regard to such a candidate that a masters degree in the concerned subject is required. 6. In the alternative, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent No.2 that prior to the year 1992 the University did not have post graduation courses in Electronics and Computer Science and hence, persons holding post graduate 5 degree in Physics, Mathematics and Statistics were entitled to be appointed on the post of lecturers in Electronics and Computer Science. Since the respondent No.3 had a post graduation degree in the subject of Physics and since at the relevant time no suitable candidate was eligible, respondent No.3 was appointed as a lecturer in the subject of Electronics in the year 1988. The appointment of respondent No.3, according to the learned counsel was duly approved by the Nagpur University and respondent No.3 also secured his doctoral degree in the year 1999 in the subject of Physics but with research topic in Electronics. Thus, according to the learned counsel for respondent No.2, the respondent No.3 had been teaching the subject of Electronics for past more than 20 years. It is the case of the respondent No.2 that the respondent No.3 was an approved guide in the subject of Electronics for guiding candidates at Ph.D. level and three candidates had acquired Ph.D. in Electronics under the guidance of respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3, according to respondent No.2, was also a guide for five other Ph.D. students in Electronics subject. All these facts as also the information received from the University Grants Commission, according to the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, weighed with the learned Chancellor for holding that the appointment of the respondent No.3 on the post of lecturer in Electronics was perfectly justified. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Shri Shantanu Ghate, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 adopted the submissions made on behalf of the respondent No.2 and submitted that the respondent No.3 had a teaching experience of more than 20 years in the 6 subject of Electronics and it was in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the respondent No.3 had possessed his post graduation in the subject of Physics as at the relevant time there was no post graduation course in the subject of Electronics in Nagpur University. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that the respondent No.3 has been working a lecturer in Electronics for a period of more than ten years with Nagpur University after his appointment and was also working as a reader for almost 9 years in Porwal College at Kamptee in the subject of Electronics and had vast experience in that subject. 8. Shri Thakare, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 supported the order passed by the respondent No.1 and submitted that the learned Chancellor has considered the eligibility qualifications as well as the pros and cons of the matter and held that the appointment of the Respondent No.3 on the post of Reader in electronics was just and proper. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 9. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Chancellor on 16th September, 2010 along with the advertisement and the eligibility qualifications, it appears that the respondent No.1 did not commit any error in holding that there was no justifiable reason for interfering with the decision taken by the University Authorities while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act. It appears that the eligibility conditions advertised by the University along with the advertisement/ 7 employment notice were based on University Grants Commission’s guidelines. The learned Chancellor sought for the views of the University Grants Commission in the said matter and the Commission had clarified that the relevance of the subject is to be determined by the concerned university as per its requirement and the Selection Committee is empowered to select a candidate on the basis of the minimum prescribed qualification and performance in the interview. The Respondent No.1 found that the respondent No.3 had not secured his post graduation degree in Electronics but while securing the post graduation degree in the subject of Physics he had appeared and was successful in some papers in Electronics as a specialized subject. The respondent No.1 considered the fact that the respondent No.3 was appointed as a lecturer in Electronics in the year 1988 and his appointment was also approved by the University. In the year 1999 the respondent No.3 had been appointed as Reader in Electronics after he has secured his doctoral degree in Physics with research topic in Electronics. Since the respondent No.3 was teaching the subject of Electronics for a period of more than 20 years and more than 3 students had acquired Ph. D. qualifications in Electronics under his guidance, the respondent No.1 found that the appointment of respondent No.3 on the post of Reader in Electronics was not illegal specially in view of the clarification by the University Grants Commission. Considering the aforesaid position and the fact that prior to 1992 the university did not conduct any post graduation courses in the subject of Electronics and Computer Science, the respondent No.1 has rightly held that the challenge made by the petitioner to the appointment of respondent No.3 on the post of reader in electronics was not maintainable. 8 10. Though the respondent No.1 was justified in upholding the appointment of respondent No.3 on the post of lecturer in Electronics by the order dated 16th September, 2010 the submission made on behalf of respondent No.2 that the main qualification for an insider is only possession of good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work and only an outsider would be required to possess a masters degree in the concerned subject does not appear to be correct. The reading of the provision pertaining to the eligibility qualification in two parts as submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 would give absurd results. It cannot be said that for an insider in the university system it would not be necessary to have a masters degree in the concerned subject and only a good academic record and doctoral degree and equivalent published work is enough. The eligibility qualifications as prescribed by the university have to be read harmoniously so that they do not produce absurd results. It cannot, therefore, be said that the doctoral degree or the masters degree may not be required in the concerned subject for an insider in the university system. If this submission is upheld, a person with doctoral degree in History or a person with masters degree in the subject of History may apply for a post of reader in the subject of Chemistry. This is not contemplated by the eligibility qualification and this also cannot be the intention of the university while prescribing the eligibility qualification as per U.G.C. Guidelines. Hence, it appears that the masters degree or doctoral degree should either be in the concerned subject or at least in the subject which is allied to the concerned subject. In the instant case, the subject of Electronics was one of the subjects for which the respondent No.3 had appeared 9 at the post graduation level and also while securing his Ph.D. in Physics his research topic was Electronics. In this background, it appears that the Selection Committee and the University appointed respondent No.3 on the post of reader in Electronics. It cannot be said in the aforesaid set of facts that there was any relaxation of the eligibility qualification in this case. It is necessary to note that the appointment of the respondent No.3 was never challenged either as lecturer in the subject of electronics or as reader in the subject of electronics and in fact, the university had granted approval to the appointment of respondent No.3 on the post of lecturer and reader in electronics in the year 1988 and 1999 respectively. This fact heavily weighed with the learned Chancellor for dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act. The judgment reported in (1990)3 SCC 655 cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. There was no relaxation of the qualification as such in this case and it cannot be said that the appointment of the respondent No.3 in the facts and circumstances of the case, would amount to fraud on public. Neither the learned Chancellor nor this Court has decided the matter on the basis of the evaluation of the work of the respondent No.3 by the Selection Committee, and hence the reliance placed by the petitioners on paragraph 11 of the unreported judgment dated 14th September, 2009 in Writ Petition No.3674/2009 is not well founded. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the learned Chancellor on 16th September, 2010 is illegal or suffers from any jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ 10 jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..