1 WP701-5787.11 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 701 OF 2011 All India Shree Shivaji Memorial Society & anr. ... Petitioners v/s State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5787 OF 2011 Shri Laxman Shivaj Godse ... Petitioner v/s All India Shree Shivaji Memorial Society & ors. ... Respondents Shri A.M.Joshi with Vipul K. Bodhare for the petitioners in W.P.No.701 of 2011. Ms.Neha Bhide, “B” Panel counsel for the State. Ms.M.G.Kulkarni with Ms.Swati Deshmukh for Resp. Nos.2 and 3 in W.P.No.701 of 2011 and for Resp. No.3 in W.P.No. 5787 of 2011. Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar for the petitioner in W.P. No.5787 of 2011 and for Resp.No.4 in W.P.No.701 of 2011. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: 19TH OCTOBER, 2011 2 WP701-5787.11 P.C.: 1. Both these petitions have a common challenge and the challenge to the order of the management Council of Pune University which accepted the recommendations made by the Grievance Committee constituted under section 57 of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994, in Case No.56 of 2006. The Grievance Committee recommended as under:- “fu"d"kZ & & vflLVaV izksQsljP;k eqyk[krhlkBh b-ek-o- izoxkZrhy Jh-xksMls ,y~- ,l~- o Jh- pkS/kjh ,l~-,e~- gtj vlY;kps gtsjhi=dko:u fnlwu ;srs- rjhns[khy Action taken regarding advertisement (enclosures) e/;s jk[kho tkxsojhy mesnokjkauk eqyk[krhl cksykoys ukgh vkf.k dq.khgh jk[khy mesnokj eqyk[krhl gtj uOgrk vls Eg.k.ks iw.kZi.ks pqdhps vkgs- ;kpk vFkZ fuoM lferhus vkiys dkedkt xkaHkh;kZus dsysys ukgh- R;keqGs jk[khy tkxsojhy vU;k; >kyk vkgs vls lferhps er vkgs- & lnjP;k inklkBh nksu mesnokj eqyk[krhl gtj gksrs- R;kiSdh Jh-xksMls ,y~- ,l~- ;kauh rdzkj fuokj.k lferhdMs nkn ekfxryh vkgs- R;keqGs R;kauk U;k; feG.;kP;k n`"Vhus lnj inkph eqyk[kr ijr ?ks.;kr ;koh- f’kQkjl & rdzkj fuokj.k lferh ek- O;oLFkkiu ifj"knsl [kkyhy f’kQkjl djhr vkgs- & fuoM lferhrhy loZ lnL;kadMs ;kckcrph fopkj.kk d:u nksu efgU;kar ys[kh [kqyklk ekxokok- & ;k inkph eqyk[kr Lora= fuoM lferhekQZr ?ks.;kr ;koh-” 3 WP701-5787.11 2. The first petition has been filed by the management whereas the second petition has been filed by the lecturer concerned who was the complainant before the Grievance Committee. The management claims that the recommendation of the Grievance Committee is totally unfounded as the Lecturer i.e. Mr.Godse L.S. was interviewed as one of the two candidates, Other Backward Class (for short, O.B.C.) and he could not meet the selection norms so as to be found fit for the post of Assistant Professor. Consequently, the Selection Committee did not recommend his name or any other candidate’s name for being appointed to the post of Assistant Professor which was reserved for the O.B.C. The selection Committee only recommended only four candidates (2 from Scheduled Caste Category and 2 from Open category). The management, therefore, contends that when the Selection Committee did not find Shri Godse fit for being selected, it was not permissible for the Grievance Committee to recommend that the selection process be conducted afresh for Shri Godse for the post of Assistant Professor. 3. Shri Godse, on the other hand, contends that he appeared before the Selection Committee on 14.7.2005 and he was interviewed. He also states that the Secretary of the 4 WP701-5787.11 Society acted as the Chairman of the Selection Committee. He alleges that the Selection Committee excluded his name from its recommendations for no justifiable reasons and, therefore, he approached the Grievance Committee. 4. Both parties were heard before the Grievance Committee and they represented their respective case. The conclusions drawn by the Grievance Committee are that Shri Godse was present for the interview but none from the O.B.C. category was called for interview by the Selection Committee and, therefore, to say that Shri Godse did not remain present for the interview, was erroneous. The Grievance Committee also noted that the Selection Committee did not take its assignment seriously and, therefore, Shri Godse suffered the injustice. The recommendations of the Grievance Committee have been considered by the management Council and the management Council approved the same recommendations and called upon the management to comply with the same as per the communication dated 10.7.2010. The Grievance Committee has recommended that, (a) explanation be called from all the members of the Selection Committee within two months and, (b) for the post of Assistant Professor in Electrical Engineering, (reserved for O.B.C.) interviews be held afresh. 5 WP701-5787.11 5. Mr.Warunjikar submitted that, from amongst O.B.C. applicants, only two candidates were present, namely, Shri Godse and Shri Chaudhari, on 14.7.2005 and some other applicants, though called for interview, did not remain present. He further pointed out that Mr.Chaudhari, came to be appointed in another college and, therefore, he has ceased to be a candidate for the post of Assistant Professor in Electrical Engineering. Mr.Warunjikar, therefore, urged that the petitioner be directed to be appointed as Assistant Professor in Electrical Engineering by the management without asking him to appear before the Selection Committee. We are not impressed by these arguments. It is well settled that, in the academic matters, while exercising the power of judicial review, the views of the experts should not be interfered unless there are compelling reasons made out and in the instant case, we are satisfied that the Grievance Committee has tried to strike a balance and recommended to call for explanation from the Selection Committee members and to arrange for afresh interviews. If the explanation of the Selection Committee members so submitted reveals that Shri Godse was selected by it on 14.7.2005, there may not be any need to hold fresh selection process. But if the Committee members submit that he was interviewed and he did not make to the selection, there would be need to arrange the interviews afresh. There is no 6 WP701-5787.11 dispute between the parties that the post of Assistant Professor in Electrical Engineering is still vacant. 6. Hence, both the petitions fail and they are rejected. 7. The compliance of the Grievance Committee’s recommendations be made within a period of two months from today. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) 7 WP701-5787.11