Allowed

Shaikh Shaukat Ali Liyakat Ali Shaikh v. the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Aug 2011WP/1076/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed this writ petition where the petitioner was denied permanent approval for a Lecturer's post. Relying on Supreme Court precedent on the prospective operation of qualification rules passed after appointment, the court quashed the refusal and directed approval along with payment of arrears and regular salary.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 3.12.2010 was quashed; respondent no.3 directed to accord approval within one month and pay arrears and regular salary.

Shaikh Shaukat Ali Liyakat Ali Shaikh Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

WP 1076/11

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1076/2011 Shaikh Shaukat Ali Liyakat Ali Shaikh V/s The State & others.

¶6

|
Office Notes, Office
||_________________
| |---|---| |Memoranda of Coram,
|
appearances, Court's
||
Court's or Judge's orders
| |orders or directions
||| |and Registrar's orders
|||

¶7

Shri Anand Patil, Advocate h/f Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for petitioner.

¶8

Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri S.S. Vidwans, Advocate h/f Shri R.V. Ghuge, Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶9

Shri S.C. Swami, Advocate for respondent nos.4 & 5 absent.

¶10

CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ.

¶11

Date: 23.08.2011

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith

¶14

and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

The petitioner takes exception to the order dated 3.12.2010 thereby refusing to grant permanent approval to the services of the petitioner.

¶16

The petitioner, after undergoing the selection process by a duly constituted

¶17

WP 1076/11

¶18

¶19

selection committee, was appointed as Lecturer in Public Administration vide order dated 30.1.2004. The petitioner is thereafter continuously working in the respondent no.5 – college run by the respondent no.4. The impugned order has been passed on the ground that the petitioner has not obtained M.Phil. qualification.

¶20

This Court in Writ Petition Nos. 8837/2010 & 8841/2010 had an occasion to consider the similar issue. It is not in dispute that the petitioner on the date on which the impugned order was passed, is already possessing M.Phil. qualification. The petitioner hash passed M.Phil. on 23.1.2009. This Court in the aforesaid writ petitions, vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2010, has observed thus:

¶21

“ A useful reference can be made to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court, in the matter of Atul Suresh Patil & others Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, in Writ Petition No.357/2010, dated 20^th October, 2010. The Division Bench of this Court has allowed the petition, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the matter of Madan Mohan Sharma and another Vs. State of

¶22

WP 1076/11

¶23

¶24

Rajasthan and others, reported in 2008(3) SCC 724, wherein it has been held that the subsequent insertion of compulsory NET/SET qualification by gazette notification dated 11.7.2009 made by University Grants Commission will have to be held to be prospective in its operation.

¶25

Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court, which has been followed in the judgment delivered by this Court, in Writ Petition No.357/2010 (supra), the criteria applied by the University in refusing to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioners, as Lecturers, is irrelevant. On the date of issuance of advertisement i.e. 21.5.2008, the petitioners were holding necessary qualifications and were eligible for being appointed. The impugned orders passed by the University, therefore, will have to be quashed and set aside.”

¶26

In view of the view taken by this Court, the present petition also deserves to be allowed.

¶27

The impugned order dated 3.12.2010 issued by the respondent no.3 rejecting approval to the appointment of the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The respondent no.3 is directed to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner within a period of one month from today. Needless to mention that consequent upon grant of

¶28

WP 1076/11

¶29

¶30

approval, the petitioner shall be paid arrears of salary as well as regular salary.

¶31

Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as

¶32

to costs.

¶33

(M.T. Joshi, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) Dt/- 23.08.2011 ndk/c2381120