1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6782 OF 2009 Pralhad s/o Rambhaji Jaybhaye Age: 37 Yrs., occu. Service, r/o Department of Meteorology, College of Agriculture, Parbhani. - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra (Through it’s Secretary Agricultural, Dairy & Fishery Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32). 2) The Registrar, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, District, Ahmednagar. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Vijay A. Dhakne, Advocate for Petitioner; Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar,AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr.Manish N.Navandar, Advocate for Resp.No.2. ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 10th December, 2009. JUDGMENT (PER: K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.) 1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties heard finally. 2 2) The petitioner applied to Respondent No. 2/university pursuant to the advertisement for the post of Associate Professor of Agronomy, being qualified for the same. However, the candidature of the petitioner is held not eligible for the post of Associate Professor on the ground that he is not fulfilling the minimum experience of three years in the cadre of Assistant professor, despite the fact that he having actual more than three years’ experience in the cadre of Assistant Professor. The action of the authorities is assailed by the present petitioner. The petitioner has urged to direct the Respondent No.2-University to issue a call letter for the interview of said post. 3) The Respondent/university has placed before us Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeths) Statutes, 1990 and the Circular. 4) During the course of submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner, slammed the initiative of rejecting the petitioner at the base stage, as according to him, the University desires to accommodate a candidate, not eligible for the post, being close relations of the authorities. However, these aspects are flashed only during the course of submissions. There are 3 no pleadings, least any such eventuality projected. 5) We make it clear, even if it is not so indicated in the pleadings, Respondent no. 2/University is bound to adhere to the strict rules of eligibility criterion prescribed by it in the advertisement, and any waiver to the terms will naturally entail in the consequences flowing there from. 6) The petitioner has worked as a Research Associate on a consolidated pay under the Scheme. He has virtually no experience of Assistant Professor on regular establishment in the pay- scale as is expected. He has worked as an Assistant Professor only for seven months at Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani on a regular establishment, this naturally does not indicate that he is able to fit in experience criterion. The petitioner earlier was working as a fellowship. It was not on regular pay-scale and on permanent basis, and naturally there was no teaching experience associated with his assignment. 7) The promulgation of the Scheme of Research Associate, created by the Government of India, was on purely temporary basis. But 4 fellowship in the pay-scale of Rs.8,800/- and the terms and conditions make it clear that such award is purely on a temporary and contractual basis. After expiry of the tenure in the said fellowship, the petitioner shall not have any legal right to any benefit of permanency. The petitioner contended that he has submitted the experience certificate dated 23rd September, 2005. However, it is not so, but it was a Certificate dated 30th June, 2004, showing his experience as a Research Associate and not as an Assistant Professor. 8) The earlier assignment of the petitioner at Akola w.e.f. 27.9.2005 to 28.8.2008 could not be reckoned equivalent to the post of Assistant Professor as the qualification of Assistant Professor as it is more than clear that the post of Senior Research Assistant is junior and could not be equated to the post of Assistant Professor. 9) Taking these aspects into consideration, non-issuance of a call letter to the petitioner during the recruitment process, need not be subjected to judicial review as the Rules framed by the statutory authority, in respect of qualification, is within the strict realm of the authorities. While exercising jurisdiction under 5 Article 226 of the Constitution, ordinarily this Court need not direct the University to prescribe a qualification for holding a particular post. The recruitment process initiated by the University, does not demonstrate any favoritism to any other candidate than the petitioner. It cannot be said that with calculated move, the petitioner is sought to be excluded from the process. The petition lacks merit, it is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. sd/- sd/- (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (NARESH H. PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/wp6782.09 fldr.9.12.09 Authentic copy (BD VADNERE,PS)