W.P.No.5952 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5952 OF 2009 Hanumant s/o Vasantrao Deshmukh, Age 42 years, Occu.Service, R/o "Yankras" Niwas, Ambeves, Parli (Vaijnath), District Beed ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Director of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. Joint Director, Higher Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 3. Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, through its Registrar, Aurangabad 4. Controller of Examination, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad (5). The President, } Deleted as per leave Late Laxmibai Deshmukh Shikshan Prasarak }of the Court dated Mandal, Parli Vaijnath } 8.9.2009 } (6) The Principal, } Late Laxmibai Deshmukh Shikshan Prasarak } Mandal, Parli Vaijnath } ..RESPONDENTS Mr Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner Mr P.P.More, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 Mr S.S.Thombre, Advocate for respondents 3 and 4 Respondents 5 and 6 deleted as per the leave of the Court dated 8.9.2009 CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 25th April 2011 W.P.No.5952 of 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith, by consent. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that his representation has been turned down by the Grievance Committee. According to the petitioner, who is qualified with M.S.W., M.A. (Sociology), UGC (S.E.T.) (Sociology) degrees, he possesses qualifications which would entitle him to be appointed as Full Time Lecturer in Sociology. It appears that the College in which the petitioner is employed had sought approval from the respondents for the appointment of the petitioner as a lecturer. However, the approval was not granted because the petitioner did not have the requisite qualifications. The petitioner had, therefore, approached the Grievance Committee which has turned down his representation without referring it to the "Equivalence Committee" (Department of Examination). 3. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be well founded. It appears from the correspondence annexed to the petition that the question of equivalence of qualifications possessed by a candidate is to be determined by the “Equivalence Committee” (Department of Examination). However, in the present case the Grievance Committee has decided the issue of equivalence on its own. We, therefore, pass the following order The impugned order dated 28.11.2008 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Grievance Committee. The Grievance Committee shall refer the issue in respect of the equivalence of the qualifications that the petitioner W.P.No.5952 of 2009 3 possesses and the qualifications required for being appointed as a Full Time Lecturer in the subject of Sociology, to the Equivalence Committee (Department of Examination). The Grievance Committee shall refer the matter to the Equivalence Committee (Department of Examination) within a period of four weeks from today. The Equivalence Committee shall decide the issue within a period of four weeks thereafter and forward its decision to the Grievance Committee. The Grievance Committee shall complete its hearing and pass appropriate orders within four weeks of the receipt of the report from the Equivalence Committee (Department of Examination). The petitioner is permitted to place documents on record indicating that there is equivalence between the two qualifications. Rule made absolute accordingly. ( M.T. JOSHI, J. ) ( SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. ) (vvr/5952.09)