1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.648 of 1999 1] Jitendra S/o. Suryakant Sontakke Age 27 years, Occupation Service R/o. Jinendra Bhavan, Krishisarathi Colony, Basmath Road, Parbhani 431 401. 2] Pramod S/o. Kundlikrao Wakle Age 27 years, Occupation Nil R/o. Matruchaya Nivas, Ramkrishna Vihar, Near Widekar Hospital, Ganesh Nagar Road, Nanded. Petitioners Versus 1] State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Department of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] Director General Maharashtra Council of Agricultural Education & Research, Shivaji Nagar, Agricultural College Campus, Pune 411 005. 3] Vice-Chancellor Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri Dist. Ahmednagar. 4] Vice-Chancellor Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dist. Akola. 2 5] Vice-Chancellor, Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dist. Parbhani. 6] Vice-Chancellor Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli. 7] University Grants Commission (UGC), through Chairman, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002. Respondents Mr.S.V. Chandole, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. B.V. Wagh, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Mr. M.N. Nawandar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 5. with 2] WRIT PETITION NO. 2173 OF 2001 Jitendra S/o Suryakant Sontakke, Age 30 years , Occupation Service R/o. Jinedra Bhavan, Krishisarathi Colony Bashmath Road, Parbhani. PETITIOINER VERSUS 3 1] State of Maharashtra 2] Vice-Chancellor, Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhaji, Dist. Parbhani. 3] Registrar, Marathwada Krishi vidya Peeth. Parbhani, Taluka and Dist. Parbhani. 4]University Grants Commission (UGC) through Chairman, Baadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002. 5] Suryakant B. Pawar, Age 29 years, Occ. Service C/o. Marathwada Agricultural University, Agronomy Department, At and Post Parbhani, Tal. And Dist. Parbhani. 6] Director General Maharashtra Council of Agricultural Education and Research, Shivajinagar, Agricultural Colleges Campus, Pune 411 005. RESPONDENTS. CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR & S.S. SHINDE,JJ. DATE : 27th April, 2011. 4 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER P.B. MAJMUDAR,J.] : 1] Since the subject matter of both these petition is common, the same are disposed of by this common judgment. By way of these petitions, the petitioners who were not selected to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor have challenged the selection of the selected candidate (respondent No.5 in W.P. No. 2173 of 2001) on the ground that the concerned Universities (respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in W.P.648/1999) have not followed the UGC Regulations of 1991 and 1995, which prescribes minimum qualification of passing NET examination for appointment to the post of Lecturers/Assistant Professors. 2] On the basis of the advertisement issued on 28/10/1998 for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor, the petitioners applied for the same. However, they were not found suitable. Thereafter, by way Writ Petition No.648/1999, they have challenged the selection process undertaken by the concerned universities on the ground that the candidates who have been selected were not having qualification of National Eligibility Test (NET) examination. In the subsequent petition, i.e. W.P. No. 2173 of 2001, the petitioner has challenged the advertisement on the ground that, in the advertisement, no conditions of NET examination was prescribed and that while selecting the candidates, the aspect of eligibility of NET Examination has not been taken into account. 5 3] The petitions have been resisted by the respondents. So far as W.P. No. 648 of 1999 is concerned, an affidavit has been filed by the Registrar, Marathwada Agricultural University Parbhani, wherein it is stated that , the Indian Council of Agricultural Research is the Apex body and funding agency and University Grants Commission does not play any role in the control of Agricultural Universities and therefore the directions of the UGC are not applicable to the Agricultural Universities. . Learned counsel appearing for the University submits that at the relevant minimum qualification of passing NET examination was not applicable, though, now since 2010, the same has been made applicable so far as agricultural universities are concerned. He has placed on record a copy of the Govt. Resolution dated 18/3/2010, in support of his contention. 4] One of the prayers made in the petitions is that the respondent No.1 be directed to amend the statute according to the direction of UGC, by issuing a writ of Mandamus. In this behalf, it is required to be noted that the petitioners have appeared in the interview and ultimately they were not selected. It is now not proper on their part to challenge the selection process on the ground that there was no requirement of passing NET examination in the advertisement. In the earlier petition (W.P. No.648/2999) the petitioners have also not joined 6 the selected candidates. 5] Apart from the aforesaid aspect, the petitioners having appeared in the interview after going through the advertisement, wherein, there was no requirement of passing NET examination, they are not justified in challenging the selection process. During the pendency of the petitions, there was no interim relief operating in favour of the petitioners. It is to be noted that more than 12 years have lapsed since the selection process is over and the selected candidates are serving on the posts in question. Even in the advertisement, there was no such requirement of passing NET examination. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the challenge in regard to advertisement made in one of the petitions. In our view, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that, only now in the year 2010, the passing NET examination for the post of Lecturer has been made compulsory. 6] In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the writ petitions. The writ petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged. In the circumstances there shall be no orders as to costs. Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [S.S. SHINDE,J] [P.B. MAJMUDAR,J.] grt/wp