1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WP No. 2042 of 2010 Kishore v. The Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr P.R. Puri, Adv for petitioner Dr B.G. Kulkarni, adv for respdt no.3 Mr V.A. Thakare, AGP for respdt no.4 Coram: B. P. Dharmadhikari & A. P. Bhangale, JJ Dated: 24th August 2011 1. The matter is being heard since long. 2. Contention in the petition is, an insertion of word “librarian” in definition of phrase “teacher” in Section 2 (34) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 is unconstitutional as Librarian is not a teaching post at all. Petitioner is Assistant Librarian and it is claimed that he is already officiating as Librarian from 1.4.2003. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Honourable Apex Court in R.B. Desai & anr v. S.K. Khanolekar & ors reported at (1999) 7 SCC 54. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned AGP for respondent no. 4 are supporting the amendment as effected. 4. The only grievance which appears to have been, is denial of avenue of promotion. The denial is by statutory 2 amendment. The Legislators, for reasons best known, wanted to include post of Librarian in definition of phrase “teacher”. The logic behind the same has not been assailed or commented upon. Reliance upon judgment of Apex Court in this background is misconceived. There, the channel of promotion was available and hence, Honourable Apex Court in that background considered the concept of seniority and found that unless excluded by a specific provision, seniority cannot be ignored for the purpose of promotion. Here, there is a specific provision by which post of Librarian has been added to the definition of “teacher”. Judgment of Honourable Apex Court in All India Federation of Central Excise v. Union of India & ors reported at (1997) 1 SCC 520 is pressed into service to show how in paragraphs 4 and 5 a provision permitting 50% posts by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion has been looked into. 5. The amendment to Statute is presumed to be valid and constitutional unless demonstrated otherwise. As the petitioner has failed to demonstrate before this Court that the amendment is unconstitutional, we are not in a position to accept the challenge. Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Judge Judge joshi