Dismissed

Imran S/O Khalikbhai Sheikh v. the Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, through Its Registrar, Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC26 Aug 2014WP/1096/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged the school appointments of a candidate, alleging lack of PhD qualification and absence of minority representation in the selection committee. The court rejected both submissions, dismissing the petition on merits and on estoppel grounds.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed seeking a quashment of the selection of Respondent No.2.

Imran S/O Khalikbhai Sheikh Vs the Rashtrasant Tukdoji… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1/3

¶2

wp1096.1 4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1096 OF 2014

¶5

Imran Khalikhbhai Sheikh

¶6

-vs-

¶7

The Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University and another

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶10

Mr.F.T.Mirza, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.R.D.Bhuibhar, counsel for the respondent No.1. Mr.Anand Parchure, counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & P. R. BORA, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 26.08.2014.

¶13

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the selection and appointment of the respondent No.2 on the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Geology.

¶14

The respondent-University had issued an advertisement on 05/02/2013 calling applications for appointment on several posts including the post of Assistant Professor in Geology. The petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 applied for the said post along with the other eligible candidates. The respondent-University selected the respondent No.2 on the post of Assistant Professor. The petitioner has challenged the action of the University in selecting the respondent No.2 on the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Geology.

¶15

Shri Mirza, the learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the selection of the respondent No.2 on two grounds. Firstly, according to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 is not qualified to be appointed on the post of Assistant

¶16

2/3

¶17

wp1096.1 4

¶18

Professor, as the respondent No.2 is not awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009. It is submitted that the candidate was either required to pass the NET Examination or to possess a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the Regulations of 2009. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 does not possess the Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations of 2009. Secondly, according to the petitioner, though the petitioner belongs to the minority community, there was no member from the minority community in the Selection Committee as required by Clause 6 of Ordinance No.19 of the University.

¶19

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, it appears that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. The petitioner has challenged the selection of the respondent No.2 on the ground that the respondent No.2 is not awarded the Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the Regulations of 2009. The respondent No.2 is awarded the Ph.D. Degree in November, 2011. It is categorically stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent-University as well as the respondent No.2 that Ph.D. Degree has been awarded to the respondent No.2 in accordance with the Regulations of 2009. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to refute the statements made by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their affidavit-in-reply. The first submission made on behalf of the petitioner, is therefore, liable to be rejected.

¶20

3/3

¶21

wp1096.1 4

¶22

The second submission made on behalf of the petitioner is also liable to be rejected, as the petitioner is estopped from challenging the same after having participated in the selection procedure. It is well settled that a person participating in the selection process cannot afterwards turn around and challenge the selection process. If there was no member on the Selection Committee from the minority community, it was for the petitioner to challenge the constitution of the Committee before appearing at the interview. It would be necessary to refer to the judgments reported in (2010) 12 SCC 576 (Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar), (2011) 1 SCC 150 (Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission) and (2009) 3 SCC 227 (Amlan Jyoti Borroah v. State of Assam) in this regard.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶24

JUDGE JUDGE

¶25

KHUNTE

Imran S/O Khalikbhai Sheikh v. the Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, through Its Registrar, Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran S/O Khalikbhai Sheikh v. the Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, through Its Registrar, Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Resham S/O Dadaji Randive Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Ruler Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Amreen Urdu Minorities Education Society, through Its President Ghulam Arif Ghulam Mustuafa, Akola Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of School Education and Sports, and 5 Others

Rajendra Jeetsingh Rathod Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Tribal Development, Mumbai and Another

Dr. Madan Vasantrao Joshi Vs Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University, through Its Dean /Competent Authority, Nagpur

Sunil S/O Gulabrao Janorkar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Rural Development Etc., Mumbai and 3 Oth

Shri Datta S/O Blkrishna Dhote and Another Vs the Programs Manager, Maharashtra State Child Protection Society, Pune and 4 Others