WP No. 3568/10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3568 OF 2010 Dr. Sandeep s/o. Vishwanath Shinde, R/o. 202, Indraprasta Apartment, Indraprashta Nagar, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. R.J. Godbole, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.J. Patil, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. R.V. Ghuge, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 & 5. Mr. Sameer Yadhav h/f. Mr. G.R. Ingole-Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 6. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 9th September, 2011. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner applied against post of Lecturer in the subject of Chemistry in Senior Colleges advertised by the respondents - Management. The respondents - Management runs various colleges. The posts of Lecturers in Chemistry subject were advertised for Indira Gandhi Mahavidyalaya and Yashwant College. The post in Yashwant College was grant-in-aid post WP No. 3568/10 2 whereas the post of Lecturer in Indira Gandhi Mahavidyalaya was partially granted. The petitioner applied against both the advertisements. University Selection Committee selected candidates and listed the petitioner at Sr. No. (1) in respect of both the posts advertised for two different colleges. The respondent No. 6 was appointed as Lecturer in Yashwant College whereas the petitioner was issued appointment order in respect of the post of Lecturer in Indira Gandhi Mahavidyalaya. The petitioner refused to accept the said appointment order and did not join. The Management thereafter appointed the only wait listed candidate, who accepted the appointment and accordingly, both the posts were filled in by the Management in February 2010. The petitioner is admittedly a Lecturer in Chemistry subject in a Junior College run by the same Management. 3. Learned counsel Shri. Godbole for the petitioner submits that in the light of fact that University Selection Committee listed the petitioner at Sr. No. (1) in respect of both the advertisements, the Management ought to have offered the petitioner post of Lecturer which was grant-in-aid and not on the post which was partially granted. It is the choice of the petitioner to accept either of the posts. The Management malafide did not issue appointment order to the petitioner on the post of grant-in-aid which has WP No. 3568/10 3 resulted in causing prejudice to the petitioner's interest. The action of the Management is therefore unreasonable and arbitrary. The counsel further submitted that the University Selection Committee adopted different modus in preparing list in respect of other subject. This itself shows that even the University Selection Committee has resorted to the method not established by law. 4. Learned counsel Shri. Mantri for respondents - Management submits that there cannot be different approach in respect of appointment of a candidate on a post receiving grant-in-aid or getting partial grant. In the facts of the case, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner could have been appointed to either posts available in the respective colleges and accordingly the petitioner was appointed. It is responsibility of the Management to pay the petitioner in accordance with the pay scale which are prescribed, approved and applicable to a candidate irrespective of grant-in-aid and therefore, the petitioner cannot have grievance. 5. Learned counsel Shri. Ghuge appearing for the University supports the stand adopted by the Management. It is submitted that considering the experience of candidates, the respondent No. 6 was appointed to the Lecturer's post in Chemistry subject which was getting grant-in-aid and the Management is not bound to WP No. 3568/10 4 appoint the petitioner on the post getting grant-in-aid. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has failed to add necessary parties to the proceedings of this petition. Representation was made by the petitioner to the Vice-Chancellor which has been rejected. According to the counsel, further representation/application was made by the petitioner to Hon'ble the Chancellor of the University which is still pending. 6. We have perused the record placed before us and considered the submissions advanced. It is a matter of fact now that in view of the stand adopted by the petitioner candidates were appointed by the Management consequent to the selection list finalized by the University Selection Committee and appropriate appointment orders were issued in the month of February 2010. The respective candidates have joined the post. The question raised before this Court is whether the Management ought to have appointed the petitioner to a post which gets grant- in-aid. The learned counsel for the parties could not placed before this Court any Rule, Regulation in respect of the petitioner's right or Management's obligation to issue appointment orders or place the candidates in a particular college in respect of the post of Lecturer in Chemistry subject. At the same time, there is no dispute on the principle that Lecturer though serving on a post WP No. 3568/10 5 which is partially aided, the Management is bound to pay salary and other emoluments in accordance with the pay scale which are prescribed, approved and applicable. 7. The question as to whether petitioner was more meritorious or respondent No. 6 in considering placement of the candidate to the said post cannot be gone into. In the light of the facts of the case and submissions advanced, we are not inclined to admit the petition. In exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, no interference is called for. Petition therefore is rejected. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/wp3568.10