Dismissed

Ajay Sarjerao Deshmukh v. Navgan Shikshan Sanstha Rajuri and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Mar 2018WP/4809/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a university order disqualifying a librarian candidate due to a government resolution changing qualification norms after the selection process started. The court held that the petition could not be granted, particularly noting the petitioner's procedural default in a related civil appeal years prior.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the writ petition was rejected and the impugned order stood affirmed. A civil application pending with the petitioner was also disposed of.

Ajay Sarjerao Deshmukh Vs Navgan Shikshan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

4809.2000WP

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4809 OF 2000

¶5

Ajay s/o. Sarjerao Deshmukh,
Age: 29 years, Occ: Librarian,
R/o. C/o. S.V.Deshmukh,
‘Pasayadan’ Navjeevan Shikshak
Colony, Beed, Dist. Beed.

¶6

 PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. Navgan Shikshan Sanstha Rajuri, Tq. & Dist. Beed Through its Secretary

¶9

2. The Principal, Navgan Shikshan Sanstha, Rajuri’s Arts and Commerce College, Parli-Vaijnath, Dist. Beed 431 515

¶10

3. Director of Board of College and University Development Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Aurangabad.

¶11

4. The Registrar, Dr.B.A.M.University Aurangabad

¶12

5. Joint Director [Grants] Higher Education, Aurangabad.

¶13

6. State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS

¶14

4809.2000WP

¶15

¶16

...

¶17

Mr.R.J.Godbole, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.S.J.Salgare, AGP for respondent nos.5 and 6 /
State

¶18

Respondent nos. 1 to 3 served.

¶19

Respondent no.4 served as per Court’s order dtd.
29.01.2018.

¶20

...

¶21

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND

¶22

 S.M.GAVHANE, JJ.

¶23

 RESERVED ON : 20.02.2018
 PRONOUNCED ON: 09.03.2018

¶24

JUDGMENT: [PER S.S.SHINDE, J.]

¶25

1] Heard.

¶26

2]This Petition is filed with the following

¶27

prayers:

¶28

B] By writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order or direction the impugned order dated 15/16.9.2000 passed by respondent no.3 [Exh.H], may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

¶29

C] It be held and declared that on the date of interview i.e. on 10.1.2000, petitioner was qualified to be appointed

¶30

4809.2000WP

¶31

¶32

as Librarian in view of Govt. Resolution dated 25.3.1994 and as per advertisement issued by respondent management dated 14.6.1999 on the ground that process of selection had already commenced.

¶33

D] By writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction respondents no. 1 to 5 be directed to select petitioner as Librarian in Navgan Shikshan Sanstha Rajuri’s Arts and Commerce College, Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed, by giving necessary directions to selection Committee.

¶34

E] By writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction respondents no.1 to 5 be directed to continue the petitioner on post Librarian in Navgan Shikshan Sanstha Rajuri’s Arts and Commerce College, Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed, run by respondent nos. 1 and 2 and not to advertise the post of ‘Librarian’.

¶35

3]It is the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner was qualified to be appointed as
‘Librarian’ in view of the Government Resolution

¶36

4809.2000WP

¶37

¶38

dated 25.03.1994 issued by the Higher & Technical
Education Department, Government of Maharashtra.
The respondent – management advertised the post of
‘Librarian’ on 14.06.1999. Fifteen days time was
given by the management for submitting application
form, from the date of advertisement dated
14.06.1999. The last date for inviting application
form was over. The call-letters were issued to the
respective candidates along with the petitioner as
per advertisement dated 14.06.1999. Thereafter,
change was made in the requirement regarding
qualification vide Government Resolution dated
11.12.1999 issued by the Higher & Technical
Education Department, Government of Maharashtra
[for the sake of brevity herein after will be
referredasGovernmentResolutiondated
11.12.1999]. The respondent University accepted

¶39

the Resolution on 24.12.1999. The petitioner
appeared before the Selection Committee, duly
constituted by the University, on 10.01.2000. The
petitioner has been selected as ‘Librarian’, but

¶40

4809.2000WP

¶41

¶42

subsequently on 15.09.2000 respondent no.3
informed the petitioner that in view of Government
Resolution dated 11.12.1999, the petitioner is not
qualified to be appointed as ‘Librarian’. The
order dated 15/16.09.2000 passed by respondent
no.3 has been challenged by the petitioner by way
of filing the present Writ Petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, on various
grounds.

¶43

4] It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is M.Sc. [B+] and B.Lib. as such in view of the Government Resolution dated 25^th March, 1994, he is qualified to be appointed as ‘Librarian’ in senior college. The petitioner was initially appointed by respondent no.1 as ‘Librarian’ on 07.07.1998, and as on today he is working as Librarian in the College of respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 advertised the post of Librarian in ‘ Dainik Lokmat’ dated 14.06.1999,

¶44

inviting applications from the qualified

¶45

4809.2000WP

¶46

¶47

candidates, to submit their applications within 15
days from the date of advertisement. In response
to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied
to the said post on 18.06.1999. Thereafter on
23.12.1999, the call-letter was issued to him
asking him to attend interview on 10.01.2000. On
10.01.2000, the interviews were held. The
performance of the petitioner at the time of
interview was very good. The petitioner was
confident that he will be selected as ‘Librarian’.

¶48

The Selection Committee has selected the
petitioner, but the Committee has not submitted
report of selection on the ground that in view of
Government Resolution dated 11.12.1999, the
petitioner is not qualified to the post in
question.

¶49

5]It is further the case of the petitioner

¶50

that, thereafter on 03.03.2000 the petitioner made
a representation to the Vice-Chancellor of
Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University,

¶51

4809.2000WP

¶52

¶53

Aurangabad, and requested to select the petitioner
as Librarian, on the basis of his performance in
the interview, which was held on 10.01.2000. In
response to the said representation, respondent
no.3, on 31.03.2000, called explanation from
respondent no.2 as to why, the petitioner has not
been selected as ‘Librarian’ by the Selection
Committee on 10.01.2000. Respondent no.2 filed his
reply and clarified that the Selection Committee
wants to select the petitioner as Librarian but
Smt.Vaishnav had raised an objection that the
petitioner is not qualified to be appointed as
Librarian, relying upon the recommendation of 5th
pay commission in respect of requisite
qualification and pay scale. Respondent no.2
further requested respondent no.3 to select the
petitioner as Librarian. On 02.05.2000, again the
petitioner has written a letter to respondent no.3

¶54

and requested to correct the mistake of the

¶55

Selection Committee in non-selectingthe

¶56

petitioner on the ground of qualification.

¶57

4809.2000WP

¶58

¶59

6]On 15.09.2000, respondent no.3 replied to

¶60

the representation and conveyed its decision that
the petitioner has not completed M.Lib. with 55%

¶61

as such is not entitled to be selected as
‘Librarian’ in Senior College. The Vice-
Chancellor, vide his letter / Circular dated
24.12.1999, issued an order whereby the Government
Resolution dated 11.12.1999 was made applicable to

¶62

the University and College employees. The
petitioner addressed various letters, but finally
by giving reference of the decision of the Apex
Court that criteria / qualification laid down in
the advertisement cannot be changed subsequently
in the selection process initiated pursuant to
such advertisement, petitioner again addressed a
representation / objection petition to the Vice-
Chancellor and conveyed his grievance before him.
But no heed was paid to his representation.

¶63

 It is the case of the petitioner that the

¶64

4809.2000WP

¶65

¶66

process of selection was already commenced, and

¶67

therefore, right was created in favour of the
candidates to have their selection as per
advertisement dated 14.06.1999. But in view of the
letter of respondent no.3 dated 15.09.2000 right
of the petitioner to be selected has been invaded.

¶68

7]Learned counsel appearing for the

¶69

petitioner submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Gopal Krushna Rath Vs. M.A.A. Baig
& others1 has observed that when the selection
process has actually commenced and the last date
of inviting applications is over, any subsequent
change in the requirement regarding qualification

¶70

by the U.G.C. will not affect the process of
selection which has already commenced. In the
present case advertisement was issued on
14.06.1999. The applications were invited within
15 days from the date of advertisement. The said
period was expired on 30.06.1999. The process of

¶71

1AIR 1999 SC 2093

¶72

4809.2000WP

¶73

¶74

selection started. On 10.01.2000 the date of
interview was fixed. The resolution was passed by
the Government of Maharashtra on 11.12.1999. On
24.12.1999 the contents of Government Resolution
dated 11.12.1999 were accepted by the Vice

¶75

Chancellor. As such in view of the ratio laid down
in Rath’s case, Selection Committee has to select
candidate / candidates on the basis of criteria
laid down in the Government Resolution dated
25.03.1994 issued by the Higher & Technical
Education Department, Government of Maharashtra,
and as per advertisement dated 14.06.1999. An
essential qualification prescribed for the post of
Librarian as per Government Resolution dated
25.03.1994 is as under:

¶76

“Master’sdegreein

¶77

Arts/Science/Commerce or equivalent
degree with at least fifty five
percent marks or its equivalent
grade with Bachelor’s Degree in
Library Science / Information

¶78

4809.2000WP

¶79

¶80

Science / Documentation or an
equivalent professional degree with
at least 55% marks or equivalent
grade plus consistently good academic
record.”

¶81

The petitioner is qualified as per the
aforesaid qualification. The petitioner is M.Sc.
with 55% marks and has passed the Bachelor’s
Degree in Library Science with more than 55%
marks. Therefore, he applied to the post of
Librarian advertised by the respondent –
management on 14.06.1999. The petitioner submitted

¶82

his application within 15 days as per the
advertisement. The process of selection has
actually commenced. The call-letters were issued
on 23.12.1999. Therefore, on 24.12.1999, the Vice
Chancellor issued Circular making change in the
qualification. The required qualification as per
the said Circular is M.Lib. with 55% marks. The
petitioner was not possessing that qualification
at the time of interview on 10.01.2000, and

¶83

4809.2000WP

¶84

¶85

therefore, his right to be selected as qualified
candidate was affected. It is well settled
judicial principle that the statutory rule or any
subsequentchangeintheruleapplies

¶86

prospectively. The Supreme Court has held that,
amending Rules could not affect the existing
rights of those candidates who were being
considered for selection, as they possessed the
requisite qualifications prescribed by the Rules

¶87

before its amendment. In the present case, the

¶88

right of the petitioner for selection on the post
of Librarian, as per his qualification on the date

¶89

of issuance of advertisement is violated. The
petitionerispossessingthenecessary

¶90

qualification as per the Government Resolution

¶91

dated 25.03.1994. The qualifications were in
accordance with Rules and Guidelines then in

¶92

force. As such the petitioner is entitled to be
selected by the Selection Committee as per his

¶93

qualification, which were then in force.
Therefore, the impugned letter dated 15.09.2000,

¶94

4809.2000WP

¶95

¶96

disqualifying the petitioner to be appointed for
the post of Librarian is required to be quashed
and set aside.

¶97

8]It is submitted that it is evident from

¶98

the letter of Principal dated 26.04.2000 that the
petitioner’sperformancebeforeSelection

¶99

Committee was good. It is also clear from the said
letter that an objection has been raised by Smt.
Vaishnav in respect of required qualification of
the petitioner, otherwise the petitioner was
actually selected by the Selection Committee. Due
to lack of knowledge on the part of the Selection
Committee in non-considering the petitioner as

¶100

qualified candidate, the selection of the
petitioner was not made. Therefore, it is required
to be directed to respondent nos.1 to 4 to assess

¶101

the performance of the petitioner as if the
petitioner is qualified for the post of Lecturer
and to select the petitioner for the post of
Lecturer by observing that the petitioner is

¶102

4809.2000WP

¶103

¶104

entitled and qualified to be selected as Librarian in view of the Government Resolution dated 25.03.1994. The necessary orders be passed to select the petitioner as Librarian by giving directions to respondent nos. 1 to 5. The impugned letter dated 15.09.2000, declaring that the petitioner is not qualified to be appointed as Librarian, is required to be quashed and set aside in view of the ratio laid down in the Gopal Krushna Rath [cited supra] . Therefore, the impugned letter dated 15.09.2000 is illegal and improper and the same is required to be quashed and set aside.

¶105

9]On the other hand, learned AGP appearing
for the respondent-State relying upon the
affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent
nos.5 and 6 submits that, as per the grant in aid
formula, respondent no.5 is the authority to
provide salary grants to the admissible and
sanctioned posts subject to the annual utilization

¶106

4809.2000WP

¶107

¶108

of the grants. The management is the competent
authority to fill up the posts of teaching and
non-teaching staff as per the norms laid down.

¶109

There is statutory Selection Committee, which is
required to be constituted by the management /
College for selection of Librarian. While
interviewing and selecting the candidate, it is

¶110

for the Selection Committee to verify and
scrutinizethequalificationsandother

¶111

eligibility as per norms laid down by the UGC /
Government and University. The petitioner was not
qualified to be appointed as Librarian as per the

¶112

5th Pay Commission norms, as he has not secured
requisite marks i.e. 55% marks in M.Lib. and
therefore, respondent no.3 by his communication

¶113

dated 15/16.09.2000 has refused to appoint the
petitioner on the post of Librarian. The
communication dated 15/16.09.2000 is already on
record, which is at Exhibit-H Page-44 of the

¶114

compilation of the Petition. Considering the facts

¶115

and circumstances of the case, there is no

¶116

4809.2000WP

¶117

¶118

substance in the contentions raised by the
petitioner in the present Petition, therefore, the
Petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶119

10]We have considered the submissions of the
learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties. With their able assistance, we have
perused the pleadings in the Petition, grounds
taken therein, annexures thereto, and the
affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent
nos.5 and 6. It is true that respondent no.2
published an advertisement on 14th June, 1999 in
daily ‘Lokmat’, advertising the post of
‘Librarian’ from the open category, and at the

¶120

relevant time the necessary qualification for the
appointment on the said post was B.Lib. with 55%
marks. However, it appears that the petitioner was

¶121

called for interview by call-letter dated
23.12.1999. Meantime, the Government Resolution
dated 11th December, 1999, issued by the Higher &
Technical Education Department, Government of

¶122

4809.2000WP

¶123

¶124

Maharashtra, thereby laying down that the

¶125

candidate interested for the appointment of the
post of Librarian shall possess M.Lib. with 55%
marks was brought into force. Therefore, the
Committee, which interviewed the petitioner, did
not recommend the name of the petitioner, keeping
in view the aforesaid Government Resolution dated
11th December, 1999, which was issued prior to
interviewing the petitioner. The qualification
mentioned in the said Government Resolution has
also relevance vis-a-vis 5th Pay Commission norms

¶126

for the qualifications laid down for the
appointment as Librarian. The petitioner was not
qualified to be appointed as Librarian as per the
norms of 5th Pay Commission, as he has not secured

¶127

requisite marks i.e. 55% marks in M.Lib. It is
true that the advertisement was issued mentioning
therein necessary qualification B. Lib. for the
appointment as Librarian, and therefore, the
petitioner is justified in saying that the post of
Librarian advertised ought to have been filled in

¶128

4809.2000WP

¶129

¶130

keeping in view his qualification as per the
advertisement dated 14.06.1999.

¶131

11]It appears that the petitioner filed

¶132

Civil Application No.1115 of 2004 taking exception
to the advertisement published in Dainik ‘Lokmat’
on 15th March, 2003, calling applications from the

¶133

candidates for the post of Librarian by
respondent no.2. However, from perusal of the
record of the Petition, it appears that the
petitioner did not make an attempt to get that
application circulated for hearing. It was crucial
stage for the petitioner to move this Court so as
to seek appropriate relief in terms of prayer

¶134

clauses-B and C in the said application.
Unfortunately, no steps were taken, and consequent
upon issuance of such advertisement by respondent

¶135

no.2 on 15th march, 2003, respondent no.2 might

¶136

have appointed some other candidate on the post of
Librarian. In the present Petition, such appointed
candidate, if any, is not made party. It further

¶137

4809.2000WP

¶138

¶139

appears that when the Petition was taken up for
hearing on 25th August, 2014, none appeared for the
petitioner, and therefore, the Petition was
dismissed in default, and consequently, Civil
Application was disposed of. Thereafter, by order
dated 22nd September, 2017, the Civil Application
filed by the petitioner for restoration of the
Petition was allowed, and accordingly, the Writ
Petition was restored to its original file.

¶140

12]Taking over all view of the matter, in
our considered view, the relief as prayed by the
petitioner cannot be granted.

¶141

13]During the course of hearing, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner in the
alternate submitted that without fault of the
petitioner, the petitioner has to suffer, and
therefore, he is entitled for the compensation. It
appears that the Petition was filed and was
circulated for admission on 27th November, 2000,
and the Division Bench [Coram : B.H.Marlapalle &

¶142

4809.2000WP

¶143

¶144

N.V.Dabholkar, JJ.] passed the following order:

¶145

The Petition is based on the Government Resolution dated 11^th December, 1999 copy of which has not been filed. No urgency. Petition to appear in regular course.

¶146

14]The another Division Bench [Coram :

¶147

R.M.Lodha & A.B.Naik,JJ.] on 10th June, 2002,

¶148

issued ‘Rule’ in the Petition. Thereafter, the
matter was called out for final hearing on 25th
August, 2014, however, none appeared for the

¶149

petitioner, as a result the Petition was
dismissed. There are no pleadings or prayers in
the Petition for the compensation. It is also not
clear that against whom the petitioner is seeking
direction for compensation.

¶150

15]In the light of discussion herein above,

¶151

we are unable to persuade ourselves to grant any
relief in favour of the petitioner, hence the
Petition stands rejected. Rule stands discharged.

¶152

4809.2000WP

¶153

¶154

16]In view of rejection of Writ Petition No.
4809 of 2000, Civil Application No.1115/2004 does

¶155

not survive, and the same stands disposed of.

¶156

 [S.M.GAVHANE] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶157

DDC

Ajay Sarjerao Deshmukh v. Navgan Shikshan Sanstha Rajuri and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Sarjerao Deshmukh v. Navgan Shikshan Sanstha Rajuri 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

Dilip Harischandra Jadhav Vs Anita Dilip Jadhav

Rahul Chandrakant Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ghulam Mustaffa Khan Mohd Umar Khan Vs the State Ofmah and Ors.

Sudhir Nathu Raktate Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rahul Bhimrao Dehade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prashant Shyam Sapkale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.