1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3674 of 2009 Pradeep s/o Kawaduji Butey, Aged about 47 years, Resident of “Anand Mangal”, 278, Bajaj Nagar, West High Court Road, Nagpur-440 010. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Honourable Chancellor, Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur (His Excellency The Governor of Maharashtra), Raj Bhawan, Malabar Hills, Mumbai-400 035. 2. The Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, through the Registrar, Nagpur. 3. The Vice-Chancellor, The Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur. 4. Dr. Rakesh Jagdish Ramteke, Aged about 37 years, R/o Quarter No.A-1, Staff Quarters, North Marathwada University Campus, Umavi Nagar, Jalgaon. ... Respondents Shri Z.A. Haq, Advocate for Petitioner. Dr. B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate, with Shri S. Khandekar, Advocate, for Respondent No.4. 2 CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 14th September, 2009 Oral Order : 1. This petition by a Teacher, who had been appointed as Reader in Computer Science by respondent No.2-University, is directed against the order passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. 2. Facts, which are material for deciding this petition, are as under : The petitioner as well as respondent No.4 had applied for the post of Reader in Computer Science in pursuance to an advertisement issued by respondent No.2- University on 13-7-2007. The advertisement required a candidate to have a good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. The petitioner had a second class Degree in Science having secured 53.48% marks and a second class Master’s Degree in Science having secured 54.40% marks and claimed to have four published research papers in lieu of Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Respondent No.4, on the other hand, is stated to have secured 49% marks in B.Sc., 57.60% marks in M.Sc. in Computer Science, and also holds Ph.D. in Computer Science. 3. Published research work of the petitioner was 3 referred to a Committee of Experts, which comprised of Dr. N.V. Kalyankar, Dr. K.V. Kale and Dr. P.S. Avadhani. These Experts were also the members of the Selection Committee. On 8-11-2008, the date on which the interviews were held, the Committee claimed to have evaluated the published work of the petitioner and found that “The published work is of high quality, published in reputed journals and can be considered to be equivalent to Ph.D. Considering the quality of research work, we, the following members, recommend his name for the post of Reader in Computer Science”. Thereafter, the Selection Committee seems to have approved the petitioner’s selection. The petitioner was presumably placed at serial no.1 in the panel of names recommended and was appointed as Reader in Computer Science. 4. Respondent No.4 filed a petition to the Hon’ble Chancellor under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act. Notices were issued to the petitioner as well as the University and after hearing the parties, the Hon’ble Chancellor, by his impugned order dated 7-8-2009, held that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as Reader in Computer Science and, therefore, directed termination of the appointment of the petitioner as Reader in Computer Science after giving him one month’s notice. The Hon’ble Chancellor held that the basic requirement of educational qualification was Master’s Degree in Computer Science with 55% marks and Ph.D or equivalent published work, which the petitioner did not possess, since he was 4 Master of Science in Statistics. The Hon’ble Chancellor also held that the Vice-Chancellor had asked the Subject Experts to evaluate the published work on the date of the interview, which clearly shows that the scrutiny of the application was done on an ad hoc basis and the petitioner was presumed to have published work equivalent to Ph.D. The Hon’ble Chancellor found that the procedure adopted showed undue favourtism with particular candidate and, therefore, held that the selection cannot be said to have made in a fair and transparent manner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and the learned counsel for respondent No.4. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the requirement of having 55% marks or equivalent grade at Master’s level in the concerned subject was only for those, who joined from outside the University System, is possibly correct. The requirements in the advertisement, which have been elicited in para 3 of the petition, read as under : “ A good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. In addition to this, the candidates, who joined from outside the University System, shall also possess at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade “B” in the seven points scale with grade, O, A, B, C, D, E, & F 5 at the master’s degree level in the concerned subject’ A N D Five years’ of teaching and/or research excluding the period spent for obtaining the research degree and has made some work in the areas of scholarship as evident by quality of publications, contributions to educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula.” It may be seen that the good academic record with doctoral degree or equivalent published work is the basic qualification and for the candidates, who are from outside the University System, further requirements are prescribed. 7. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that since the petitioner was not serving in any University Department, he must be taken to be from outside the University System. If the requirement was that candidate must be from a University department and not an affiliated College, there was no need to use the words “University System”. The University could have said that a candidate from outside a University department would have to comply with the additional requirements. The petitioner, undisputedly, was serving in an affiliated College in Nagpur University. Therefore, as far as this requirement of 55% marks at Post Graduate level is concerned, the conclusions drawn by the Hon’ble Chancellor may not stand to scrutiny. 6 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had a good academic record with published work, which was equivalent to doctoral degree and, therefore, had the essential qualifications for being considered. 9. As far as “good academic record” is concerned, the learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that the University Grants Commission has explained by notification dated 13-6-1983 “good academic record” to mean that a candidate holding a Ph.D Degree should possess at least a second class Master Degree, a candidate without Ph.D degree should possess a higher second class in Master Degree and a second class in Bachelor Degree, or a candidate not possessing Ph.D Degree but possessing a second class Master Degree (i.e. not a higher second class in Master Degree) should have obtained a first class in Bachelor Degree. 10. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that considering unavailability of candidates possessing such high academic qualifications, the Nagpur University had laid down the following criteria for determining “good academic record”, which read as under : “I. A candidate should have atleast 45% marks or its equivalent grade at 12th (HSSC/ 7 Pre-University/intermediate examinations). OR II. Candidate should have atleast 45% marks or its equivalent grade at bachelor degree level. OR III. Candidate should have M.Phil or Ph.D degree in the relevant subject.” Therefore, according to the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner may have passed the muster if these criteria were to be applied. In view of the dilution in the requirements for good academic record introduced by the Nagpur University, it may not be inappropriate to hold that the petitioner did possess good academic record for the purposes of entry into teaching post in the Nagpur University. 11. The problem with published work equivalent to a doctoral degree, however, still remains. The evaluation report of the Experts has already been extracted in the earlier part of this order. One can understand the difficulties of the University in not having a statutory provision for carrying out such evaluation, but absence of such provision should not have prevented the University from devising a procedure, which would be fair and transparent. It is curious that the same Experts, who were to participate in the selection process, gathered on the same day, read the papers and not only certified them to be of high quality, but also recommended the petitioner for 8 appointment as Reader in Computer Science. They should have realized that as independent Experts, who were supposed to participate in the selection process, they should not have recommended the petitioner for appointment as Reader in Computer Science. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Hon’ble Chancellor was wrong in taking the view that the selection of the petitioner was not made in a fair and transparent manner. He was, therefore, justified in directing respondent No.2-University to terminate the appointment of the petitioner as Reader in Computer Science, which respondent No.2 seems to have done. 12. In view of this, no case for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution is made out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge. Pdl.