1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. W. P. No. 4988 of 2008. Prakash S/o Govindrao Dalal Vs. The Union of India and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri Aparajit Ninawe, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 8th December, 2008. Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner was one of the candidates for selection to the post of Lecturer in Home Economics, and the Selection Committee consisted of : (1) Dr. Kalpana Jadav - (Management Council Nominee). (2) Mrs. Maya Thaokar – (Nominee of Vice Chancellor. (3) Dr. Sandeepa S. Surjuse – (Subject Experts) 4. Smt. A. B. Neole - (Subject Experts). The Selection Committee recommended the name of Respondent No.5 Mrs. Geeta Ramdas Ambatkar and she 2 came to be appointed. The petitioner submitted his representation to the Vice Chancellor on or about 2-11-2007 objecting to the appointment of Respondent no.5 on two grounds namely : (a) Mrs. Maya Thaokar was not qualified to be appointed as the nominee of the Vice Chancellor because she did not possess minimum experience of 12 years and (b) Mr. Ambatkar was the member of the Management Council, and he had allegedly spread a message that he had influenced the Vice Chancellor and got his wife appointed. The petitioner also submitted another representation to the Vice Chancellor on 8-2-2008 and as there was no decision, he approached this Court in Writ Petition No.3129 of 2008. The said representation was disposed off on 8-9-2008 and the pending representation was directed to be decided according to law and within a period of six weeks. Based on the said order, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 22-10-2008 to the Vice Chancellor bringing 3 to his attention the order passed by this Court. Finally, the petitioner's representation came to be rejected by the Vice Chancellor as has been communicated to him by the Director (BCUD) of the respondent University vide his communication dated 6-11-2008. Mrs. Maya Thaokar is not impleaded as a Respondent in this petition and even otherwise, the only ground canvassed against her is about her experience of 12 years. It has been communicated in the impugned letter dated 6-11-2008 that Mrs. Thaokar had more than 11 years experience, but less than 12 years when the Selection Committee met. Direction no.7/1999 in its Appendix- VIII states that one subject expert to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor shall have preferably a minimum of 12 years experience as a teacher in the concerned subject. When Mrs. Thaokar had more than 11 years experience, it cannot be said that she was disqualified to be a member of the Selection Committee because the word used is “preferably a minimum of 12 years experience.” Even otherwise, it is not permissible for the petitioner to 4 challenge the constitution of the Selection committee as being illegal after he had undergone the selection process and was not selected in the said selection process. We agree with the decision of the Vice Chancellor that the challenge to the appointment of the Respondent No.;5 is on most vague grounds and therefore, we are satisfied that the petition is devoid of merits. Petition is therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/