Dismissed

Shankar Bhagwan Ambhore v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jan 2012WP/1400/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition by an unsuccessful candidate for the post of Principal, the Court examined grievances regarding the qualifications and teaching experience of the appointed incumbent. The Court held it was the University's competence to verify qualifications and experience, affirmed the approval of the appointment on probation, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; Collegiate application disposed of as not surviving.

Shankar Bhagwan Ambhore Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp1400-09.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1400/2009

¶5

Dr.Shankar Bhagwan Ambhore

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus The State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

Mr.S.S.Jadhavar,Adv.for petitioner. Mr.D.R.Korde,AGP for State. Mr.S.V.Gundre h/f Mr.V.D.Gunale,Adv.for R.2 Mr.M.M.Ambhore,Adv.for R.3 & 4. Mr.S.R.Barlinge,Adv.for R.5

¶10

Mr.Alok Sharma,Standing counsel for respondent no.6.

¶11

CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL AND T.V.NALAWADE, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 20th JANUARY 2012

¶13

PER COURT

¶14

1] Heard.

¶15

¶16

wp1400-09.odt

¶17

2] The petitioner participated in the selection process against

¶18

an advertisement issued on 14/1/2008 by the respondent Milind College of Arts, Aurangabad. The advertisement was issued for the post of Principal. Out of ten candidates, seven candidates were interviewed by the selection committee constituted by Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University [University for short]. Preference of selection committee was with two candidates. Respondent no.5 Dr.Vaishali Sitaram Pradhan was given first preference, whereas, petitioner Dr.Shankar Ambhore was shown in waiting list. In accordance with the recommendation of the selection committee, respondent no.5 was issued appointment order. A proposal was forwarded by college to the University accordingly for approving appointment of the respondent no.5 on probation. Initially by communication dated 20/9/2008, the university authorities raised certain queries on the approval of appointment of respondent no.5 Dr.Pradhan but lateron, by communication dated 13/10/08, the Director, Board of College and University Development informed the Secretary of Milind College of Arts, Aurangabad that the Vice Chancellor was

¶19

¶20

wp1400-09.odt

¶21

pleased to accord approval to the appointment of Dr.V.S.Pradhan as Principal at Milind College of Arts, Aurangabad on probation for two years from the date of her joining i.e. from 1/4/2008 in Reader Grade.

¶22

3] Respondent no.5 Dr.V.S.Pradhan at the relevant time was an employee of the University discharging her duties as Reader. She was allowed to keep lien on the said post by the university.

¶23

4] The unsuccessful candidate the present petitioner filed this petition in the month of January 2009. Consequent to the notice issued, the respondent college, university, U.G.C. and Dr.V.S.Pradhan filed affidavit in reply.

¶24

5] In substance, submission of learned counsel Shri S.S.Jadhavar appearing for the petitioner is that the respondent no.5 Dr.V.S.Pradhan does not satisfy essential conditions required

¶25

for appointing her as Principal of the respondent college. The learned counsel submitted that in absence of required qualification

¶26

¶27

wp1400-09.odt

¶28

the acquisition of teaching experience by respondent no.5 would not entitle her to be eligible for the post of Principal. The university had initially realised these lacunae, therefore, certain queries were raised by the University with the management but surprisingly, the University thereafter, did not pursue the matter and instead, granted approval to the proposal of the management. The counsel submits t hat for want of required qualification, the respondent no.5 does not satisfy the criteria of having teaching experience for ten years or fifteen years.

¶29

6] In the submission of the counsel, the petitioner satisfied all the conditions required. Irrespective of the same, he was placed in waiting list. The counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the following reported cases : (1) 2006[6] Bom.C.R.804 Vaijanath Tatyarao Shinde V/s Secretary and others ; (2) AIR 1999 S.C. 2118 Dr.[Sushri] Rajni Bala Agrawal, V/s Lalit Narain Mithila University, Darbhanga [Bihar] and others (3) AIR 2011 S.C. 1429 Visveswaraya Technological University and Anr. V/s Krishnendu Halder and Others (4) AIR 2009 S.C. 935 Diptimayee Parida V/s

¶30

¶31

wp1400-09.odt

¶32

State of Orissa and others (5) AIR 2007 S.C. 2053 V.B.Prasad V/s Manager, P.M.D.U.P. School and others (6) AIR 2007 S.C. 1746(1) Rajasthan Public Service Commission V/s Kaila Kumar Paliwal and Another (7) AIR 2007 S.C. 254(1) Sanjay Kumar Manjul V/s Chairman, U.P.S.C. and others.

¶33

7] The learned counsel Shri S.R.Barlinge appearing for the successful candidate i.e. respondent no.5 Dr.V.S.Pradhan submits that the petitioner has no locus to challenge appointment of respondent no.5, as he participated in the selection process and was placed in waiting list. The petitioner has raised questions of facts which are seriously disputed by respondent no.5. According to learned counsel, under the subject advertisement the candidate was required to show teaching experience only and accordingly respondent no.5 had produced relevant record showing that she had requisite experience of teaching. Acquisition of qualification of NET/SET/PHD for the purpose of having teaching experience was irrelevant to the facts of the present case according to the learned counsel. Respondent no.5 after having permitted to keep lien, is

¶34

wp1400-09.odt

¶35

¶36

discharging her duties as Principal. In the facts of the case according to the learned counsel, it would not be appropriate now to disturb the appointment of respondent no.5. The learned counsel Shri S.R.Barlinge placed reliance in the case of K.H.Siraj V/s High Court of Kerala and others reported in 2006 AIR SCW

¶37

3136. We have perused the judgment cited supra.

¶38

8] Shri Ambhore, learned counsel for the college submits that the petitioner’s case was forwarded for approval of service on probation and accordingly the University granted approval.

¶39

9] The learned counsel for University submits that after verifying the record, approval was accorded to the appointment of respondent no.5 Dr.V.S.Pradhan.

¶40

10] The learned counsel Shri Alok Sharma submits that it is for

¶41

the university to look into the record and decide on the issue of approval strictly in accordance with the legal provisions, statute, regulations maintained by the university.

¶42

wp1400-09.odt

¶43

¶44

11] Respondent no.5 had filed two Writ petitions. Writ Petition No.967/2010 was disposed of by this Court on 30/11/2011. In para 6 of the said order this Court observed as under :

¶45

“6] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner has completed two years probation period during the pendency of this petition, it should be presumed that she has successfully completed the probation period to the satisfaction of the management. The counsel has referred to the provisions of Statute 219-B of the University. We have perused the same. In the facts of the case, we observe that completion of period of two years during the pendency of this petition, on the basis of the interim relief granted by this Court,

¶46

¶47

wp1400-09.odt

¶48

would not entitle the petitioner to claim that the petitioner has completed the probation period in accordance with the provisions of Statute 219-B. The management is entitled to take steps in this regard in respect of claim of completion of probation to the satisfaction of the management. We leave the said issue open for the management of respondent no.1 to consider and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.”

¶49

12] Writ Petition No.3670/2011 was admitted and by interim relief, the order passed by respondent no.1 University canceling further period of lien for a period of two years , was stayed.

¶50

13] The issue raised by the petitioner relates to service record of respondent no.5 Dr.V.S.Pradhan. The petitioner's grievance is

¶51

¶52

wp1400-09.odt

¶53

that the authorities concerned, before approving services of the respondent no.5, did not consider her service record for deciding as to whether respondent no.5 had requisite experience based on necessary qualification. Though initially, the University raised certain issues in respect of experience of respondent no.5 but lateron, approval was granted to the appointment of petitioner.

¶54

14] In the facts of the case, we noticed that the university is authorized and entitled to look into the qualification of respondent no.5 to hold the subject post. The issue as to whether teaching experience desired under the advertisement is based on necessary qualification and whether such experience was possessed by respondent no.5, is also a matter to be looked into by the competent authority of the university. We find that the competent authority of the university in the facts of the case and the record placed in respect of the appointment of the respondent no.5, is entitled to take appropriate decision. On behalf of respondent college, it is already submitted that the proposal was forwarded for appointment of petitioner on probation and such a

¶55

wp1400-09.odt

¶56

¶57

proposal was approved by the university by communication dated 13/10/2008. In case the university desires to look into the matter

¶58

afresh, the university is entitled to do so. With these observations, petition is disposed of.

¶59

15] In view of disposal of Writ Petition, Civil Application No.

¶60

14559/11 does not survive and the same is disposed of.

¶61

(T.V.NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)

¶62

umg/wp1400-09

Shankar Bhagwan Ambhore v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Bhagwan Ambhore v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajaj Auto Limited Vs Badri Sakharam Patil

Bajaj Auto Limited Vs Dattu Pralhadrao Sagar

Bajaj Auto Limited Vs Dattu Pralhadrao Sagar

Mahesh Prakash Somwanshi Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Satish Ramchandra Salunke Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Madanlal Lalchand Jain Vs the State of Mah and Anr.