: 1 : wp.302.2011 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.302 OF 2011 Anjana Sanjay Lawand (nee: Smt.Anjana Haridas Padwal) .. Petitioner V/s. The Registrar, Solapur University & Ors .. Respondents Mr.P.P. Chavan I/b Vinod Jadhav for the Petitioner Mr.Sanjay D. Thokade for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Ms.S.S. Bhende, AGP, for Resp. Nos.4 & 5 Mr.A.G. Damle with I.M. Khairdi for Resp. No.6 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATED: AUGUST 9, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.): 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is essentially challenging two orders passed by the Registrar of Solapur University dated 20.12.2010 respectively. Briefly stated, the petitioner and Respondent No.6 were appointed on temporary basis by the then Shivaji University in 1998. Since they were not regularised, both of them had filed a joint petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.1510 of 2002. The same was : 2 : wp.302.2011 allowed by this Court on 12.6.2008, thereby directing the University to regularise the concerned petitioners against the available or future vacancies. Pursuant to the said direction, the University submitted the proposal on 18.9.2008. It is not in dispute that in the year 2008, when the proposal was submitted, the petitioner before this Court had already acquired the qualification of Ph.D and SET and was thus, eligible for being regularised on the post of Lecturer – Chemistry. The Respondent No.6, however, acquired the qualification of Ph.D on 25.2.2009. Respondent No.6 has been exempted from SET. Since the Petitioner has acquired the qualification of Ph.D in earlier point of time, his case for regularisation was due for consideration by the University against the available or future vacancy as the case may be. The University accordingly considered the claim of the petitioner for regularisation but negatived the proposal on the sole ground that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis against the OBC post for which reason his services could not be regularised. On that finding, the petitioner was informed that he would stand relieved w.e.f. 20.1.2011 from the services of the University. On the same day, by another order, the University regularsied the services of Respondent No.6 w.e.f. 25.2.2009 i.e. from the date of acquiring the Ph.D. Qualification. Accordingly, both these orders are the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 3. Both sides have filed documents to justify their stand. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner was initially appointed against the open category by the Shivaji University which position is reflected from the documents at pages 234 and : 3 : wp.302.2011 239 of the paperbook. Page 234 is the communication issued under the signature of the Vice Chancellor of the University dated 3.5.2011. That indicates that when the petitioner was appointed around July 2002, there were two vacancies in the post of Lecturer – Chemistry. The petitioner was appointed against one such post which was an open category post as is noted from the chart appended at page 239. The University, on the other hand, relies on the report dated 19.6.2000 of the Selection Committee which refers to the fact that the petitioner was appointed against the OBC category. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the name of the petitioner is shown in the waiting list reserved for OBC. The basis on which that remark has been noted in the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee is not before us. At any rate, since the petitioner is relying on the documents issued by the Shivaji University who had initially appointed the petitioner on the post of Lecturer-Chemistry, it would be appropriate that the claim of the petitioner should be considered in the context of the documents which the petitioner intends to rely to substantiate the fact that he was appointed on the post of Lecturer- Chemistry (Organic) against the open category. If the petitioner is able to substantiate the same, it would necessarily follow that the University would be obliged to consider his claim in the first place and not of Respondent No.6 who has acquired the qualification of Ph.D. at a later point of time. We place on record that the only reason stated in the impugned decisions is that the petitioner was appointed against OBC post for which reason his services cannot be regularised. In the fresh enquiry, which we propose to direct in terms of this judgment, the only issue that will have to be examined by the University is whether the petitioner was : 4 : wp.302.2011 appointed against the OBC post and if that question is answered in favour of the Petitioner, the petitioner should be considered for regularisation unless he has incurred some disqualification after the decision of this Court dated 12.6.2008. That is the matter to be examined by the appropriate authority. 4. Suffice it to observe that in stead of examining all the documents which both the parties wish to rely to establish the fact as to whether the petitioner was or was not appointed against the OBC post for the first time in writ jurisdiction, we would relegate the parties before the Registrar for reconsideration of that issue afresh by giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner as well as Respondent No.6 as the case may be. 5. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned decisions dated 20.12.2010 at pages 87 and 88 of the paperbook i.e. exhibits S and T respectively and in stead direct the Registrar to reexamine the proposal of the petitioner keeping in mind the documents relied by the petitioner. All questions are left open in that behalf subject to the observations made by us hitherto. The Registrar of the University shall decide the proposal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from today and pass appropriate orders, as may be advised. 6. We make it clear that setting aside the impugned orders does not mean that the petitioner as well as Respondent No.6 should cease to work in the same capacity as they are presently working. Rather they would continue to work till a : 5 : wp.302.2011 final decision is taken by the Registrar in that behalf. We further make it clear that if the petitioner is appointed against the available vacancy, the claim of the respondent No.6 for regularisation in terms of order dated 12.6.2008 can be considered in future vacancies subject to the eligibility. We also leave the question open as to whether the University can consider regularising the services of petitioner against some other vacancy of open category even if it was to be found that the petitioner was initially appointed against the OBC post. 7. The petitioner and Respondent No.6 shall appear in the Office of the Registrar on 22.8.2011 at 11 am on which date, the Registrar shall schedule the proposal of the Petitioner for consideration and specify the time limit within which the parties should file their documents in support of their respective claims while ensuring that the final decision is taken within the specified period. 8. Writ petition is disposed off on the above terms. No order as to costs. ( R.Y. GANOO, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)