Allowed

Vinod Ninu Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Dec 2018WP/348/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the Government Resolution dated 18.10.2001 regarding NET/SET qualifications is rendered inoperative by the Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013. Consequently, the petitioner is not impeded from considering his existing qualification for the lecturer post.

What did the court decide?

Government Resolution dated 18.10.2001 is held not to be an impediment; rule made absolute.

Vinod Ninu Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wp 348.02

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 348 OF 2002

¶4

Vinod Ninu Patil,
Age: 39 Years, Occu.: Service,
R/o.: 9/B Indraneel Apartment,
Vedant Nagar, Station Road,
Aurangabad

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.The State of Maharashtra ,
(through its Secretary Higher
and Technical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai)

¶8

2. The University Grants Commission (through Secretary) Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002

¶9

3. Bar Council of India (through its Secretary) AB/21 Lal Bahadur Shahstri Marg Opp. Supreme Court Building New Delhi – 110 001

¶10

4. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University (through its Registrar) Aurangabad

¶11

5. Chairman Peoples Education Society (through its Assistant Secretary) Milind Science College Campus Nagsenvan, Aurangabad

¶12

6. The Principal, Dr. Ambedkar College of Law Aurangabad

¶13

2 wp 348.02

¶14

7. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa through its Secretary, High Court of Bombay Building Annex, Mumbai .. Respondents

¶15

Mr. Milind M. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. K. S. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Pradeep Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent
No. 4.

¶16

CORAM:S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. G. AVACHAT, JJ.

¶17

DATE:07th DECEMBER, 2018

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.):

¶19

1. We had heard Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for

¶20

the petitioner, the learned A.G.P. and
Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the University.

¶21

2.The petitioner assails the Government
Resolution dated 18.10.2001, issued by respondent
no. 1 prescribing qualification of NET / SET.

¶22

3. The petitioner claims to have been appointed

¶23

as a regular lecturer on 25.02.2000. Prior to that
he was working as contributory lecturer since the
year-1995. The learned counsel submits that it is
not necessary for the petitioner to achieve the

¶24

3 wp 348.02

¶25

qualification of NET / SET and relies on the

¶26

judgment and order of this Court dated 13.09.2013
in Writ Petition No. 9494 of 2013.

¶27

4.Mr. Patil, the learned Advocate submits that,
the University has also forwarded the proposal
seeking exemption of NET / SET on 04.08.2008.

¶28

5.We have also heard the learned A.G.P. and the
learned Advocate for the University.

¶29

6.This Court in Writ Petition No. 5271 of 2013

¶30

with connected writ petitions had disposed of the
similar matters. Based on the judgment in Writ
Petition No. 5271 of 2013, the Court also decided
Writ Petition NO. 9494 of 2013 with connected writ
petition under judgment and order dated
13.09.2013.

¶31

7.It is not disputed that the petitioner herein
is appointed as a full time lecturer on
25.02.2000, after following due selection process
since then he is officiating on the said post.

¶32

4 wp 348.02

¶33

8.The Government Resolution dated 18.10.2001

¶34

was subject matter of consideration before this
Court in Writ Petition No. 5271 of 2013 with
connected writ petitions, so also, Writ Petition
No. 9494 of 2013 with connected writ petition
decided on 13.09.2013. The Court reproduced the
observations of the judgment delivered in Writ
Petition No. 5271 of 2013 with connected writ
petitions. The same reads thus -

¶35

“15. It appears that in Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1326/2012, a statement was made on behalf of the State Government that Government Resolution would be issued exempting teachers, who were appointed after following prescribed procedure during the period from 19.09.1991 to 03.04.2000, and stating that a GR will be issued granting exemption from NET / SET to those teachers who were appointed during 1991 to 2000 and the Government and the Universities would protect the pay fixation, including increments already paid to the teachers and, therefore, there will be no recovery of annual increments which the teachers have already earned. It appears that subsequently, Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013 has been issued from which it emerges that it has been decided that -

¶36

1. Notification dated 19.09.1991 of the

¶37

UGC has been adopted by the State Government under a Resolution dated 23.10.1992 and, as such, the stipulations

¶38

5 wp 348.02

¶39

in the notification dated 19.09.1991 would not be applicable to the lecturers appointed before 23.10.1992.

¶40

2. The lecturers, who are appointed during 23.10.1992 to 03.04.2000, who do not possess NET/SET/Ph.D./ M.Phil. would be considered for all purposes, on fulfillment of the conditions that -

¶41

(a) Their appointments should be on regular basis.

¶42

(b) Their appointments should be made after following the prescribed procedure.

¶43

(c) The lecturers shall have all other qualifications except NET/SET. (d) Proposals of such lecturers should have been forwarded to the UGC for approval.”

¶44

9.Considering the decisions of the Court in the
Writ Petitions referred to supra, it would be
clear that this Court has categorically held that
the Government Resolution dated 18.10.2001 would
be of not much consequence in view of the
Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013.

¶45

10.In the light of above, the writ petition is
allowed and the Government Resolution dated

¶46

18.10.2001 would not be an impediment for
considering the qualification of the petitioner
possessed by him as a proper qualification for the

¶47

6 wp 348.02

¶48

post of lecturer. Rule accordingly made absolute
in above terms.

¶49

11.The writ petition accordingly stands disposed
of. No costs.

¶50

[R. G. AVACHAT, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶51

marathe

Vinod Ninu Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Ninu Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sai Krupa Trades and Service, Latur Vs Union of India and Others

Subhash Nagorao Gawande Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Amrutlal Chatur Naik and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kedarnath Dwarkadas Mantri Vs Municipal Council , Ambad

Addl Registrar High Court Abad Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Shalmal Lachhiram Bajaj Vs Satate of Mah. and Ors.