1 wp9394.11.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9394 OF 2011 Bhimrao Ramchandra Dashwant ....Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Umesh Mankapure i/by Mr. Sukumar Ghanvat for the Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. A.B. Borkar for Respondent No.3. CORAM :­ D.K DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE :­ 19 DECEMBER, 2011. P.C. :­ Rule, returnable forthwith. 2 Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3 By this Petition, the Petitioner who is presently working as a Lecturer in Vishwasrao Naik College, Shirala challenges 2 wp9394.11.sxw ssm communication dated 24 February 2010 from the Shivaji University informing him that his appointment as Lecturer cannot be approved in view of the notification dated 11 July 2009 made by the University Grants Commission. The post was advertised on 12 June 2009, thereafter interviews were held and the Petitioner was selected and was appointed as a Lecturer. The only reason why his appointment has not been approved is the notification dated 11 July 2009. That notification has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur in its judgment dated 2 July 2010 in Writ Petition No. 1489 of 2010 Sudhir Sharadrao Hunge Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and other connected matters. What is observed by the Division Bench in paragraph No.10 of that Judgment reads as under:­ “10. From the above, it is clear that the subsequent insertion of compulsory NET/SLET qualification by gazette notification dated 11.7.2009 made by University Grants Commission will have to be held to be prospective in its operation since in all these cases the advertisements as per earlier eligibility qualifications were duly approved and sanctioned by the University and were also published well before the cut­off date, namely, 11.7.2009 and at any rate before the last date of application that was to be made pursuant to these advertisements. Last date of application as per advertisements is a crucial date in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” 3 wp9394.11.sxw ssm 4 It is thus clear that the qualification prescribed by the University notification dated 11 July 2009 would apply to the posts which were advertised after the date of that notification. Hence the university was not justified in refusing to approve the appointment of the Petitioner as Lecturer relying on the notification dated 11 July 2009. 5 Hence the communication dated 24 February 2010 is set aside. The University is directed to reconsider the question of granting approval to the appointment of the Petitioner, as a Lecturer. The University is directed to take the decision and communicate to the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four weeks from today. 6 Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)