Pradip Gulabrao Pawar vs The State of Maharashtra

The petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

India for giving directions to respondents like Management,

University and the Government to see that the petitioner is

appointed as Lecturer in subject Political Science for degree course.

Both the sides are heard.

It is the case of petitioner that he was appointed in

respondent No. 5 College on 25.10.2003 as he was selected for the

aforesaid post by the duly constituted Committee. It is contended

that the Management had sent the proposal for approval of the

appointment, but the University has rejected the proposal and when

representation was made by the petitioner, the representation also

came to be rejected.

The petitioner has completed M.A. in Political Science. It

is his case that though he had secured 439 marks out of 800 marks

in the course, one grace mark was given to him and so, he had

secured 55% marks in M.A. It is contended that in the past, he had

worked in other college which was affiliated with other University

though on temporary basis and for that appointment, approval was

given by the concerned University to his appointment.

Respondent Management had advertised one post for

Political Science which was for appointment on clock hour basis

(C.H.B.). This post was open post. The appointment was to be made

for academic year 2003-04 and for open post, the eligibility

condition was Master''s decree with 55% marks and the passing of

NET, SET examination. The petitioner belongs to reserved category,

scheduled caste. For scheduled caste, the eligibility condition is

Master''s degree with 50% marks and passing of NET, SET

examination as per the Regulations made by University Grant

Commission (U.G.C.), but the post advertised was for open category.

As per the statues of the University, Committee was constituted and

the Committee selected present petitioner. The University rejected

the proposal submitted by the Management in favour of present

petitioner by giving reason that he had not secured 55% marks in

M.A. and 55% marks shown in the mark-list were due to grace mark

given by the University. It was also informed that as the post was for

open candidate, it was necessary to have the qualification which is

prescribed for open category candidate.

Both the sides took this Court through the Regulations of

1991 prepared by U.G.C. to prescribe the qualification for

appointment of teaching staff in Universities and Colleges affiliated

to the University. Present post was post of Lecturer and Regulation,

3A mentioned in Schedule I of the Regulations show that for getting

post of Lecturer, one needs to get atleast 55% marks or equivalent

grade at Master''s degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian

University or an equivalent degree from Foreign University. In

addition to that it was necessary to pass NET, SET examination. It is

not disputed that the Regulations are adopted by the State

Government.

The main contention of the petitioner is that backward

class candidate, who has secured 50% marks at post degree level

can get appointment and this appointment can be even on open

post. This submission is not at all acceptable. In view of the

aforesaid Regulations of U.G.C. and the directions given and it''s

adoption by the State Government, Universities have prescribed

separate qualification for open category candidate. The decisions

taken by the Universities are placed on record in that regard. It is

made clear that as per the University Statutes [415 (1) to 415 (3)],

while conducting interviews the Selection Committee needs to keep

this eligibility condition in mind and the University will not be

approving the selection of the candidate who had not secured such

marks. The petitioner is relying on some approval orders made by

other Universities, but those orders cannot be of any use in view of

the Regulations made by U.G.C. which are binding on the

Universities and affiliated colleges.

The learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the

conditions of eligibility prescribed by the concerned authority for

appearing in NET, SET examination. It is true that for reserved

category candidate, the eligibility condition for appearing for such

test is 50% marks, but that condition also shows that grace marks

are not to be counted for considering the satisfaction of eligibility

conditions. Even when open category candidate, who has secured

54.99% marks, below 55% marks in Master''s degree examination is

not eligible for such test.

The aforesaid eligibility conditions are applicable even for

making appointment on temporary basis. The University statues,

enabling the University to give grace marks for giving particular

class to a candidate cannot supersede the Regulations made by

U.G.C. The ordinance of the Universities are placed on record in that

regard, but they can be of no use to the present petitioner in view of

the aforesaid Regulations made by the U.G.C.

The submissions made by the learned counsel for

petitioner shows that petitioner wants to get regular appointment,

though the post was advertised for the post of C.H.B. and not full

time post. The State Government had given some concessions to the

candidates who were appointed between year 1991 and 2000. Even

when they had not passed NET, SET examination, but they were

appointed as full time lecturers due to non availability of NET, SET

candidates. However, those concessions are available to the

Lecturers regularly appointed, appointed on full time post. Those

G.Rs. do not cover present matter. By getting the appointment as

per present advertisement on C.H.B. basis, it can be said that the

petitioner wanted to get further relief like getting full time post. It

was submitted that subsequently, he obtained Ph.D. degree from

one University from Madhya Pradesh. This Court had given direction

to the State Government to ascertain as to whether such Ph.D. is

conferred on petitioner by the University like Devi Ahilya

Vishwavidyalaya, Indor, but the State Government did not supply

necessary information. In any case, in the present matter on the

date of appointment, it was necessary to have necessary

qualification even for the post of C.H.B. nature. The petitioner was

not having that qualification.

The learned counsel for petitioner produced some record

to show that he was appointed in examination process for internal

assessment and it was submitted that though the approval was not

given, he continued to work with respondent Management. This

circumstance cannot enable the petitioner to get the relief claimed

in the matter like present one. It appears that the petitioner

indirectly wants to get appointment on full time post which is not

possible in view of the aforesaid circumstances. In the result, the

petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.