Dismissed

Machhindra Rupchand Chaudhari v. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University and Another

Bombay HC12 Oct 2017WP/6532/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged selection of respondent no.2 as Assistant Keeper of Museum at Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, claiming lack of experience and age issues. Court found respondent possessed superior qualifications and experience, dismissing the writ petition as devoid of substance.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; rule discharged; no order as to costs.

Machhindra Rupchand Chaudhari Vs Dr. Babasaheb… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

(Judgment) (1) W.P. No. 06532 of 2013

¶2

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

¶3

Writ Petition No. 06532 of 2013

¶4

District : Aurangabad

¶5

Machhindra s/o. Rupchand Chaudhari,
Age : 37 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Sr.No.154, Plot No.116,
Vasant Nagar, Surewadi,
Near Datta Mandir, Harsool,
District Aurangabad. .. Petitioner.

¶6

versus

¶7

1. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, Through its Registrar.

¶8

2.Amol s/o. Narendra Kulkarni,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. 11/B, Anandwan Society,
Opp. Aditya Nagar,
near New RTO Office,
Vijapur Road, Solapur,
District Solapur. .. Respondents.

¶9

...........

¶10

Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate, for respondent no.01.

¶12

Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate, for respondent no.02.

¶13

...........

¶14

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
 SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.

¶15

 DATE : 12TH OCTOBER 2017

¶16

(Judgment) (2) W.P. No. 06532 of 2013

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per R.M. Borde, J.] :

¶18

01.The petitioner is objecting to selection and
appointment of respondent no.02 to the post of
Assistant Keeper of Museum in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Marathwada University, Aurangabad. The necessary
qualification prescribed for the post under the
advertisement issued by the University in the year
2012 is that the candidate shall possess second class
Master's Degree in History / Ancient Indian culture
of a statutory University / Diploma in Archaeology
with at least two years' experience of working in
History Museum. The candidate shall also possess
proficiency in Marathi and English languages. It is
also prescribed that the candidate shall possess
proficiency in Computer as prescribed by State
Government from time to time. As per advertisement,
the desirability prescribed is that the candidate
shall possess certificate in Modi by Department of
Archives / certificate in Preservation of Manuscripts
/ certificate in excavation / certificate / Diploma
in Epigraphy.

¶19

02.The petitioner do possess Master's Degree of
Arts in the subject of History and is serving in
history museum as a Translator. He does possess
certificate of Modi language issued by the Department
of Archives. It is, however, contended that the
selected candidate i.e. respondent no.02 does not
possess two years' experience of working in history
museum. Relying on the certificate annexed by

¶20

(Judgment) (3) W.P. No. 06532 of 2013

¶21

respondent no.02 and application tendered by him seeking employment, it is contended that the experience stated by him as a Project Associate / Research Assistant as well as his experience as an Assistant Archaeologist does not satisfy the requirement under the advertisement. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan P.S.C. Vs. Kaila Kumar Paliwal & another [2007 AIR (SC) 1746] to contend that an ineligible candidate shall not be considered for the post and that the selection of respondent no.02 is bad in law.

¶22

03.The University has controverted the
contentions raised by the petitioner by filing a
reply. It is contended by the University that the
petitioner is over age and as such he is not eligible
to be considered. The petitioner, however,
controverts the contention by contending that since
he belongs to reserved category, relaxation in age is
applicable and as such he should have been considered
as eligible candidate for the post of Assistant
Keeper of Museum.

¶23

04.In the reply filed on behalf of the
University, it is stated that the selected candidate
i.e. respondent no.02 possesses much better higher
qualification than the petitioner. It is further
stated that recommendation of the Selection Committee
was accepted by the University and as such,
respondent no.02 came to be appointed.

¶24

(Judgment) (4) W.P. No. 06532 of 2013

¶25

05.Affidavit in reply is also filed on behalf
of respondent no.02, the selected candidate, wherein
he has stated that he possesses Master's Degree from
Pune University in the subject of Ancient Indian
Culture, Culture and Archeology and not merely in
Archeology as contended by the petitioner. It is
contended that in addition to the qualification of
Master's Degree, he has also been conferred with
Ph.D. degree. He has completed Diploma in Museuology
and has experience of working in museum. It is
contended that he has participated in the programme
of excavation at Junnar and has taken active part in
setting museum at Junnar, District Pune. It is
further contended that the petitioner's experience in
the museum in the University is as a translator and
not as as a museum personnel. Respondent no.02 has
also experience of working as Assistant Archaeology
in Archaeological Survey of India for about 10
months.

¶26

06.It does appear that the selected candidate
does possess much better qualification apart from
having experience as a museum personnel which is a
requirement under the advertisement. There does not
appear to be any inconsistency or irregularity in
selecting respondent no.02, who is possessing much
better qualification than that of the petitioner for
the post advertised.

¶27

07.No interference is called for in exercise of

¶28

(Judgment) (5) W.P. No. 06532 of 2013 extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of any substance. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi ) ( R.M. Borde )
JUDGE JUDGE

¶30

...........

¶31

puranik / WP6532.13

Machhindra Rupchand Chaudhari v. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Machhindra Rupchand Chaudhari v. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University 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

Kalpana Pradeep Hajare and Others Vs the Additional Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad and Others

Shiva Trusts Supriyadidi Sule College of Nursing through Its Administrative Officer S R Pawar Vs the Indian Nursing Council through Its Registrar and Others

Shaikh Nizam Shaikh Jainoddin Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Dnyandeo Sambhahji Survase and Others Vs Jayanta Raoji Suryawanshi Died by Lrs. Punda Jayanta Suryawanshi and Others

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Thr Its Divisional Officer, Latur and Anr. Vs Anuradha Damodhar Joshi

Narayan Haridas Ade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others