(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1166 OF 1994 1. Dattatraya s/o. Sarvottam Mahurkar, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Associate Professor, Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani, R/o. Parbhani. 2. Sakharam s/o. Gangaram Shetay, Age : 57 years, Occupation : Service, Associate Professor, Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani, R/o. Shivajinagar, Parbhani. 3. Chandramohan Bhagwanrao Kamtikar, Age : 55 years, Occupation and R/o. as above. 4. Arvind Laxmikantrao Sawlikar, Age : 53 years, Occupation and R/o. as above. 5. Shriram Devidasrao Choudhari, Age : 57 years, Occupation and R/o. as above. 6. Madhukar Purushottamrao Mohrir, Age : 51 years, Occupation and R/o. as above. 7. Madanlal Shankarlal Sharma, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Saraswatinagar, Parbhani. (2) 8. Devidas s/o. Hanmantrao Chitnis, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Khadkeshwar, Aurangabad. 9. Ram Ambadas Gaikwad, Age : 49 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Krishisarathi, Parbhani. 10. Suryakant Narharrao Mahajan, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. University Campus Quarters, Parbhani. 11. Anand Shankarrao Pawar, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Vaibhavnagar, Parbhani. 12. Bapu Narharrao Katepallewar, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Lokmanyanagar, Parbhani. 13. Quadir Ahmed Khan, Age : 49 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Teligalli, Subhash Road, Parbhani. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Director of Agriculture, Maharashtra State, Pune - 3. (3) 3. Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani, Through its Vice-Chancellor/Registrar. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Pradeep Deshmukh, Advocate, holding for Mrs. Smita Deshpande, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. M.N. Navandar, Advocate, instructed by Mr. K.G. Navandar, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 7TH JUNE 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the petitioners were promoted as Assistant Professor on 29th February 1973, the respondent no.3 / University, vide resolution dated 20th July 1993, resolved that the petitioners would be (4) entitled to get seniority in the cadre of Assistant Professor only on the date on which the petitioners complete their post graduation in the respective subjects. 2. The facts, not in dispute, stated briefly are as under : (a) All the petitioners were initially appointed in the Agriculture Department of the State Government, as Agriculture Officers. On the establishment of Punjabrao Agricultural University, Akola, the services of the petitioners along with other employees working in the State Government under various research schemes / institutions, came to be allotted in Punjabrao Agricultural University, with effect from 20th October 1969. (b) Subsequently, on the establishment of Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani, services of the petitioners came to be allotted to Marathwada Agricultural University, vide Government Resolution dated 29th May 1972. Vide the order dated 29th May 1973, the petitioners came to be temporarily promoted as Assistant Professor subject to their completion of post graduation course leading to M.Sc. (Agriculture). Vide the impugned resolution, it has been decided that the petitioners will be entitled to seniority in the cadre of Assistant Professor from the date on which they have passed M.Sc. (Agriculture). Being aggrieved by the said resolution, the present petition. (5) 3. Mr. Pradeep Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the impugned action of the respondent / University is hit by the principles of promissory estoppal as well as legitimate expectation. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, that vide order dated 29th May 1973, the petitioners were promoted as Assistant Professor and from the said date, the petitioners have, in fact, worked as Assistant Professor. It is, therefore, submitted that by subsequent resolution dated 20th July 1993, the University has resiled from the promise given on 29th May 1973. It is submitted, that the petitioners ought to have been given seniority from the date on which they were actually officiating as Assistant Professor. 4. The petitioners also rest their case on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. It is submitted that since the petitioners were working as Assistant Professor vide order of the Vice Chancellor dated 29th May 1973, the petitioners had a legitimate expectation of getting their seniority from the date on which they were officiating. Mr. Pradeep Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that vide Government Resolution dated 29th May 1972, the service conditions of the petitioners have been protected and by the impugned action, the service conditions have been changed to their detriment which is (6) not permissible in law. 5. Mr. M.N. Navandar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 / University, vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that the petitioners, who were not qualified on the date of their officiating promotion, are not entitled to seniority over the persons who were holding requisite qualification. 6. It is settled law, that the service conditions of the employees cannot be changed to their detriment. Moreover, vide Government Resolution dated 29th May 1972, the service conditions of the petitioners have been protected. The petitioners would have, therefore, a very good case, had any of the service conditions which were applicable to the petitioners on the date of their absorption, in the year 1972, would have been changed by respondent no.3. However, the same is not the case. Undisputedly, the petitioners at the stage of their absorption from the State Government to Punjabrao Agricultural University, Akola, were working as Agriculture Officers in Class-III cadre. Admittedly, the cadre of Assistant Professor is higher to the one in which the petitioners were working on the date of their absorption. It is not the case, that any of the service conditions which were applicable to the petitioners on the date of their absorption have been changed by the respondent no.3 / University. (7) 7. In so far as the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, regarding doctrine of promissory estoppal, is concerned, we do not find any merit in the same. On the contrary, order of the respondent no.3, dated 29th May 1973, clearly stipulate that the promotion and appointment of the petitioners, who were holding the qualification of B.Sc. (Agriculture), were on purely temporary basis and subject to the petitioners exercising options. (emphasis supplied). Not only this, the said order clearly stipulate that promotions are subject to finalization of seniority with the condition that they should complete post graduation course in Agriculture. It is thus clear that the petitioners were very well aware that their promotions were purely temporary and also subject to their exercising option. No promise is made out in the said order, that the petitioners would be given seniority in the cadre of Assistant Professor from the date on which they would officiate on the said post. On the contrary, the petitioners were put on notice, that their promotions are subject to finalization of seniority list on the condition that they would pass M.Sc. (Agriculture) examination. 8. We, therefore, find that no case is made out which would establish that certain promise was made to the petitioners and thereafter respondent no.3 had resiled from its promise. By (8) the resolution of the University, dated 20th July 1993, what has been provided is that the petitioners would get the seniority in the cadre of Assistant Professor from the date on which they would acquire M.Sc. (Agriculture) qualification. It is not in dispute, that the requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Professor is M.Sc. (Agriculture). The decision, which provides that the seniority in the promotional cadre would be given from the date on which the person acquires prescribed qualification for the said post, cannot be faulted with. 9. In so far as the claim of the petitioners, on the basis of legitimate expectation is concerned, the same is also without substance. The petitioners, who were not qualified to be promoted on higher post, cannot have a legitimate expectation to have a seniority over the persons who were holding the requisite qualification. In our view, this would give a premium to the petitioners who were not possessing the requisite qualification on the date on which they were given officiating promotion in the higher cadre. It is not the case of the petitioners, that though they have worked in a higher cadre, they have not been paid for the same. The petitioners' case, therefore, also does not fall in the category of equal pay for equal work. As a matter of fact, the petitioners have been paid equal salary for the work rendered by them. (9) 10. In that view of the matter, no merit is found in the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1166