Bombay High Court
Prof. Bandu Baburao Meshram vs Chairman on 11 May, 2012
Author: A.M. Khanwilkar
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, S.S. Shinde
vss
96612
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 966 OF 2012
1. Prof. Bandu Baburao Meshram,
Residing at H82/2, Mangaldeep Co-op. Housing Society,
Sector 14, Airoli 400 708
2. Prof. Abhay Bambole,
Residing at Academic Staff Quarters,
ICT (UDCT) Campus, R.A. Kidwai Road, Matunga (East),
Mumbai 400 019 ...Petitioners
V/s.
1. Chairman, Board of Governors,
Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute,
H.R. Mahajan Marg, Matunga (East),
Mumbai 400 019
2. University of Mumbai,
through the Registrar,
Mumbai 400 032
3. State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Department of Higher and Technical Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. ...Respondents
Mr. Susheel Mahadeshwar i/b Mrs. Ranjana Todankar for the Petitioners
Mr. D.J. Khambatta, Advocate General, a/w Mr. A.M. Kulkarni for Resp.
Nos.1 & 2
Mrs. Anjali Helekar, AGP, for the Respondent No.3
1 of 54
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 :::
96612
CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR &
S.S. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE: MAY 11, 2012
JUDGMENT (Per A.M. Khanwilkar, J.):-
1. Rule. Counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive notice. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
2. The petitioners, by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for order or direction restraining Respondent No.1 from holding the selection process for the post of Director by excluding them in the said selection process.
3. The petitioners are employed as professors in the respondent Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute. Respondent No.1 Institute is a premier Engineering College in the State of Maharashtra. The Institute is affiliated to the University of Mumbai.
It has been conferred autonomous status for a period from 2011-2012 to 2016-2017 in accordance with the provisions contained in the Statutes 593 to 642 regarding grant of autonomous status to 2 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 Affiliated College / Recognised Institution / University Department / University Institution. This is reinforced from the communication dated 20th August, 2011 issued under the signature of In-Charge Registrar of University of Mumbai bearing No.Aff./Recog.-I/2889 of 2011. Respondent No.1 Institute is a fully aided institution by the State Government.
4. An advertisement was issued on 29 th March, 2012 by Respondent No.1 inviting applications for the post of Director of the Respondent Institute. The post of Director is equivalent to the post of Principal. According to the petitioners, they possessed the requisite qualifications and therefore, applied for the said post on 9 th April, 2012 and 13th April, 2012 respectively. However, by the end of April, 2012, the petitioners realised that their colleagues have received call letters for the selection process for the said post of Director. Therefore, they made enquiries and were told by the Director of Respondent No.1 Institute that they may not have achieved the benchmark specified by the Selection Committee.
The petitioners have immediately rushed to this court on 25 th April, 2012.
3 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612
5. This petition has been filed on the assertion that in view of the Directions issued by the Vice-Chancellor bearing No.CONCOL.VCD/53 of 1993, titled as Directions Governing Terms and Conditions of Service of teachers appointed in the non-
government constituent colleges and affiliated colleges of the University of Mumbai, the Selection Committee was obliged to interview and adjudge the merits of each candidate in accordance with the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement issued by the Institute. It is then stated that the advertisement does not mention that the candidates will be graded and eliminated even before the selection process. Further, no one has been informed about the basis of the elimination before the selection process.
According to the petitioners, since they possessed requisite qualifications prescribed in the advertisement, the decision of the Selection Committee to exclude the petitioners from consideration during the selection process, was completely illegal being contrary to the directions of the Vice-Chancellor referred to above and that decision is hit by the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
4 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 On this limited ground, the petitioners have approached this court and have prayed for directions against Respondent No.1 to refrain from holding the selection process for the post of Director by excluding the petitioners therefrom.
6. The petitioners got the matter produced before us on 26 th April, 2012 after giving notice to the Counsel for the Respondent -
Institute. As the matter was notified for 2 nd May, 2012, the Court ordered that the respondents may continue with the selection process but no appointment letter be issued in favour of any participating candidate till further orders to be passed by the court. The respondents thereafter have filed reply affidavit to oppose this writ petition, and more particularly, to rebut the singular ground on which the relief was founded. The respondents have refuted the stand of the petitioners, and in particular, that the Institute has violated the provisions of statutes applicable to autonomous institutes.
According to the respondents, statute 642 of the Statutes 593 to 642 regarding grant of autonomous status to Affiliated College / Recognised Institution / University Department / University 5 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 Institution passed by the Senate at its special meeting held on 4 th December, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the said statutes) is attracted. The same reads thus:
"642. 1. The recruitment of the teaching faculty and their qualifications, reservation rules and service conditions of the teaching faculty shall be as per the Statutes prepared by the University, from time to time.
2. The service conditions, qualifications, recruitment rules and reservation rules for the appointment of the non-teaching employees shall be as per the Standard Code (Terms and Conditions of Service) prescribed by the Govt. from time to time."
7. According to the respondents, detailed procedure regarding selection process is not prescribed in this statute. Further, no statute has been framed by the University providing for detailed selection process thus far, which fact is admitted by the petitioners in para 8 of the petition. It is on that premise, the petitioners have asserted that the abovesaid directions of the Vice-Chancellor of University of Mumbai would be attracted as it provides for detailed procedure regarding selection process to be followed.
6 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612
8. The respondents contend that the circular dated 10 th February, 2012 is only a follow-up action after application of revised pay-scales under AICTE guidelines and does not constitute statutory directions to the autonomous institutes. The Government of Maharashtra has issued general guidelines for recruitment vide G.R. dated 1st March, 2008 and the steps taken by the Selection Committee were in consonance with the said guidelines. The said G.R. provides for organisational structure of faculty in the autonomous institutes. It also provides for qualifications, experience and other requirements to be fulfilled by the candidates seeking appointment for the post of Director. In that, an eminent person with academic and administrative experience of high calibre having qualifications and experience is most important consideration for appointing a particular candidate on the post of Director.
The advertisement in question was issued / published calling for the applications for the post of Director prescribing minimum qualifications and experience, which, was higher than the benchmark specified by the AICTE. The respondents rely on the said G.R. to contend that it provides for mode and manner of the appointment to 7 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 the post of Director. The process involves publication of advertisement, short listing of promising candidates by the Selection Committee, invitation to such promising candidates for discussion, recommendation of the suitable candidate to Board of Governors.
The procedure stated under the G.R. specifically provides for discussion with the candidates to be appointed for the post of Director, unlike interview in the case of appointment of all other faculty members of the Institute. Further, it also provides for short listing of the promising candidates by the Selection Committee before the discussion. Accordingly, after the advertisement in question was published on 29th March, 2012 in the newspapers and on the official website of the Institute on 20 th March, 2012, the Selection Committee received in all 20 applications. Keeping in mind the purport of the Government Resolution, the Selection Committee short listed the candidates in which the petitioners were considered as not suitable. The affidavit then proceeds to explain the benchmark kept in mind by the Selection Committee for elimination of the candidates. In para 9 of the affidavit dated 4 th May, 2012 sworn by the Hasit Joshipura, member of the Board of Governors of 8 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 the Institute, it is said thus:
"9. ... While short listing the candidates, the Selection Committee has taken into consideration various aspects related to each candidate independently as required by the aforesaid Government Resolution as well as the advertisement like academic qualifications, teaching/research/ industrial as well as administrative experience, Ph.D. Or equivalent works, academic record, good publications record in referred scientific/professional journals, post Ph.D. Research experience, academic/research leadership and good knowledge of technical education system in the country and its development. After considering all the pros and cons of each candidate, his qualifications, experience, etc., the Selection Committee has short listed in all 10 candidates, who were to be invited for discussion. I say that in the process of short listing the selection committee found that the Petitioners were not amongst those of the highest merits and therefore they were not called for the personal discussion".
9. We have reproduced this portion of the reply as during the course of arguments, the action of Selection Committee was questioned on that basis. The respondents have thus asserted that merely because the petitioners fulfilled the requisite qualifications for the post of Director, they were not required to be called for the selection process unless they also fulfilled the benchmark regarding the experience specified by the Selection Committee. The respondents further submit that the petition is completely ill-advised as it is founded on the sole ground that the Selection Committee has 9 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 failed to adhere to the norms specified in the directions issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the University, which contention completely overlooks the fact that the said directions have no application to the autonomous colleges though the college may be an affiliated college with the University of Mumbai. It was also urged on behalf of the respondents at the time of arguments that the petitioner No.2 does not possess the desirable qualifications mentioned in the advertisement and even for that reason was not eligible.
Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed being devoid of merits.
10. The petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition. In the rejoinder affidavit, it is brought on record that the Institute did not rely on the G.R. dated 1 st March, 2008 during the selection process to appoint the petitioners on the post of professors in May, 2011. That selection process was in adherence to the norms specified in the directions issued by the Vice-
Chancellor referred to above. It is also stated that even other two autonomous colleges including Sardar Patel College of Engineering 10 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 and affiliated to University of Mumbai have followed the procedure specified in the direction issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. Accordingly, it is submitted that the respondent-Institute was obliged to comply with the directions issued by the Vice-Chancellor referred to above. In the concluding paragraph of the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners have asserted that the G.R. dated 1st March, 2008 is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and further that the petitioners may be permitted to amend the petition in order to challenge the said G.R.
11. However, when the matter was argued before the Court, the Counsel for the petitioners taking clue from the stand taken in the reply affidavit of the Institute and the submission of the Counsel for the respondents across the Bar, urged further and new grounds which have neither been articulated in the memo of petition or, for that matter, rejoinder affidavit. It was submitted that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. Once again, to buttress this argument, reliance was placed on the directions of 1993 issued by 11 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 the Vice-Chancellor (for short, 'Vice-Chancellor's directions'). He contended that the Vice-Chancellor was authorised to issue such directions; and the directions so issued were binding on the respondent institute even after grant of autonomous status as it continues to be affiliated college with the University. Every affiliated college is obliged to comply with the directions issued by the Vice-Chancellor. According to the petitioners, the State Government has no authority whatsoever to issue any directions to the respondent institute in relation to the matters of qualification, experience or regarding the selection procedure for the post of Director/Principal. It was next contended that the selection procedure was not in conformity with the directions issued by the Vice-Chancellor of 1993. The said direction do not provide for short listing or elimination of candidates. It also does not authorise the Selection Committee to determine any benchmark for resorting to elimination of candidates. It was also urged that the G.R. dated 1 st March, 2008 pressed into service by the respondents was illegal and ultra vires. For, the State Government does not have power to issue directions to provide for qualifications and experience much less 12 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 inconsistent with the norms specified by the University and, in particular, AICTE. In substance, the procedure followed by the Selection Committee was questioned being inconsistent with the Vice-Chancellor's directions. Inasmuch as, it does not provide for short listing of candidates at all. Moreover, even the advertisement in question does not refer to short listing of candidates. It was also argued that the respondent Institute cannot be permitted to rely on the AICTE guidelines as is mentioned in the advertisement and at the same time, rely on the directions issued by the State Government contained in G.R. dated 1st March, 2008 to justify the constitution of Selection Committee and of elimination of candidates by the Selection Committee. It was also contended that since the number of applicants were only 20, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be absurd or unmanageable number for conducting interview or discussion with each of them by the Selection Committee, necessitating elimination of some of them or short listing to prune the list of candidates. Moreover, no criterion for short listing has been specified either in the advertisement or the directions issued by the Vice-Chancellor, as the case may be, therefore, the Selection 13 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 Committee could not have resorted to short listing.
12. It was then contended that the criterion for elimination of candidates is not notified nor made known to the petitioners.
According to the petitioners, the criterion adopted by the Selection Committee for elimination of candidates lacked objectivity. This argument is canvassed relying on averments contained in para 9 of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.1. He has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of B. Ramakichenin @ Bala Gandhi vs. Union of India, (2008) 1 SCC 362. He contends that as the directions issued by the Vice-Chancellor do not provide for short listing of candidates, it was not open to the Selection Committee to resort to that procedure. He submitted that the petitioner No.1 possesses the requisite qualification as well as desirable qualification and, therefore, was eligible candidate and had right to participate in the selection process. As regards Petitioner No.2, he possessed requisite qualification. Although he did not have desirable qualification, he was still eligible candidate and had right to participate in the selection process.
14 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612
13. At the end of the arguments, the Petitioners relied on the Rules regarding the Selection Committee, selection procedure and eligibility criteria of the qualifications notified alongwith the circular issued by the In-Charge Registrar of the University of Mumbai bearing No.CONCOL/IEC/04 of 2012 which is at exhibit 1 to the reply affidavit filed by Respondent No.3. Besides, the Counsel for the petitioners handed in draft amendment to the writ petition in support of his additional grounds argued by him. By consent of parties, the said draft amendment handed in to the Court was treated as having been granted and the matter proceeded for arguments on the basis of denial. The formality of carrying out amendment in the petition and thereafter hearing the matter would have delayed the hearing of the petition. Therefore, the Counsel for the parties agreed for the said arrangement, more particularly, considering the fact that the present incumbent Director has already tendered his resignation on 13th January, 2012 and on expiry of three months therefrom, he was required to be relieved. But, the Board of Respondent No.1 institute requested him to continue until a new candidate is selected 15 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 and appointed on the said post. Moreover, the admissions to new academic year would commence in June, 2012.
14. In the draft amendment, the first ground urged is that the G.R. dated 1st March, 2008 is illegal and without authority of law.
The next ground is that the State of Maharashtra has no authority to lay down staff qualifications in engineering colleges and has arbitrarily laid down qualifications for the staff which are different from the qualifications laid down by the AICTE. The next ground is that the Respondent Institute was fully aware that it is necessary to follow the staff qualifications laid down by the AICTE and the G.R. Dated 1st March, 2008 is illegal for which reason in the advertisement in question the qualification referred to is the one laid down by AICTE. The next ground is that in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and Statute 642, the Government of Maharashtra does not have power to lay down recruitment rules or the selection procedure for the post of Director or other faculty. The next ground is that the G.R. Dated 1 st March, 2008 is not applicable to the selection of Director in the 16 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 respondent Institute. It does not lay down any guidelines for short listing or selection of candidates. Further, there is no rationale and objective basis for short listing of candidates and the short listing is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. By this amendment, the petitioners propose to ask for further reliefs which read thus:
(a1) That this Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash and set aside the Government Resolution dated 01.03.2008 (Exhibit D to the Petition);
(a2) That this Hon'ble court may be pleased to declare that the manner and mode of selection and appointment of Director in the Respondent Institute is governed by Vice-Chancellor's Directions No.CONCOL.VCD/53 of 1993.
(a3) That this Hon'ble court may be pleased to declare that the selection of the Director of the Respondent Institute pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 01.03.2008 is a nullity in the eye of law.
15. The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent Institute contended that the directions issued by the Vice-
Chancellor have no application and are not binding on the autonomous colleges. The autonomous colleges by virtue of their 17 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 status are governed only by the provisions of the Act and statutes passed by the Senate. As, admittedly, there was no express provision in the Act or in the Statutes passed by the Senate regarding the selection procedure for appointment of Director, the respondent institute was obliged to rely on the directions issued by the State Government contained in the G.R. dated 1 st March, 2008 as the respondent Institute is 100% aided college. He contends that the Selection Committee constituted is in conformity with the guidelines specified in the directions issued by the State Government vide G.R. dated 1st March, 2008. The selection procedure suggested in the concerned Government Resolutions has been fully complied with and there is no challenge in that behalf. Besides, the qualification and experience specified in the advertisement in question is in conformity with the norm specified by the AICTE. Accordingly, there was no irregularity whatsoever committed either in the constitution of the Selection Committee or the procedure adopted by the said committee. With regard to the question of short listing of candidates, in his submission, the judgement of the apex Court relied on by the petitioners is complete answer to his argument.
18 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 It predicates that irrespective of the fact that the advertisement or the Rules do not provide for elimination, there is implicit authority in the Selection Committee to prune down or short list the number of candidates. He submits that the Selection Committee has to keep in mind that the best candidates among the applicants for the post in question are considered. As regards the post of Director, it is not a case of interview but discussion. While doing so, the Selection Committee cannot be casual and superficial in spite of the time constraints. At the same time, the Selection Committee has adopted a rationale and objective basis so that personality and merit of the persons could be reckoned; and only those persons were called for interview for proper assessment and evaluation. To buttress this submission, he placed reliance on the dictum of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of MPSC vs. Shri Kisan Tukaram More & Ors., in Writ Petition No. 8883 of 2009 decided on 21st April, 2010. He also produced the original record pertaining to the selection process in question. From the said record, it is noticed that the Board of Governors of respondent Institute in its meeting held on 9th March, 2012 decided to constitute a Selection Committee 19 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 consisting of the following members for the appointment of a new Director :
(i) Mr.Nusli N.Wadia, Chairman - Board of Governors
(ii) Secretary, Higher and Technical Education
(iii) Professor Devang Khakhar
(iv) Dr.Anil Kakodkar
(v) Hasit Joshipura
(vi) Dr.S.K. Mahajan The record also indicates that the Search Committee met on 17 th April, 2012. The meeting was convened to short list the applicants for interview. It was attended by Dr.S.K. Mahajan, DTE, Dr.Abhay Wagh - nominee of Secretary (T & H.Edu) and Mr.Girish Advani-
nominee of Chairman, BoG. The members noted that 20 applications have been received. They decided to allot marks to each of the applicants. The salient features of the marks allotted within each heading were as follows:
• 10 marks for guiding 3 Ph.D students till defence or proportion therefor.
20 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 • one mark each for one M.Tech student guided.
• one mark each for one consultancy project.
• two marks for one publication in a reputed refereed Journal.
• one mark each for one year completion as professor.
• 10 marks for 3 sponsored R & D project or proportion thereof.
16. After carrying out this exercise, it was decided that the candidates who have secured above 70 marks should be invited for interview. These minutes support and clarify the stand taken by Respondent No.1 in paragraph 9 of the affidavit of Hasit Joshipura, Member of Board of Governors of the Institute dated 4 th May, 2012, which has been extracted hereinbefore. On the basis of this record, it was contended by the learned Advocate General that the argument of the petitioners that the norm specified for elimination of candidates lacks objectivity is devoid of merits. He submitted that in fact the said ground is totally vague.
17. In the context of the position emerging from the said original record, we posed question to the learned Advocate General 21 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 as to how persons other than nominated as members of the Selection Committee could have specified the benchmark for short listing of candidates and whether the decision so taken on 17 th April, 2012 has in fact been approved or ratified by the members of the Selection Committee. In response, further affidavit has been filed by Respondent No.1 sworn by Devang Khakhar, Director of IIT, Mumbai dated 9th May, 2012, in his capacity as Member of the Selection Committee constituted by the Board of Governors in meeting dated 3rd March, 2012. He has stated that on 26th April, 2012, in the meeting of Selection Committee, all the 6 committee members were present. The minutes of the meeting of the Search Committee dated 17th April, 2012 alongwith tabular chart of the candidates who had applied for the post of Director, chart of short listed candidates were produced before the Selection Committee. All the members of the Selection Committee perused the minutes of the meeting dated 17th April, 2012 and also verified the process as well as the norms applied by the Search Committee for short listing the candidates in the said meeting. After satisfying about the correctness of the short listing, they approved and ratified both, the norms and 22 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 the process of short listing of candidates. In other words, this affidavit answers the query posed by the Court. In that, the meeting held on 17th April, 2012 was of the Search Committee appointed to assist the Selection Committee in the scrutiny of the candidates. The said Search Committee suggested norms for short listing of the candidates. On the basis of that norm, they proceeded to evaluate the case of each of the applicants and forwarded its recommendation to the Selection Committee. It is the Selection Committee constituted by the Board of Governors of Respondent No.1, vide Resolution dated 9th May, 2012, finally pondered over the norms recommended by the Search Committee and approved and ratified the same. The Selection Committee also approved and ratified the summary-sheet prepared by the Search Committee containing the assessment and marks obtained by each candidate. Thus, the final decision has been taken by the Selection Committee of inviting only those candidates who had secured above 70 marks, for interview and discussion.
Indeed, the Counsel for the respondents has criticised the decision of the Selection Committee by relying on the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. 23 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 Dr. Manjeet Singh & Anr., 1988 (Supp.) SCC 562.
18. Reverting to the arguments of the learned Advocate General, he submits that there is no infirmity in the constitution of the Selection Committee or about the decision taken by it to short list the candidates on the basis of the norms which were objective and just for pruning down the list of candidates to make the selection process more meaningful and effective. He, therefore, submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
19. The foremost question that needs to be addressed by us is: Whether the directions issued by the Vice Chancellor were binding on the respondent-institute? If this question is to be answered in favour of the petitioners, then, it would necessarily follow that the constitution of the Selection Committee is vitiated, and for the same reason, all steps taken by the Selection Committee or Search Committee working under it would be of no consequence and will have to be treated as non-est in the eye of law. This question will have to be answered keeping in mind that the 24 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 University of Mumbai has granted autonomous status to the respondent-institute, as noted in the communication dated 20 th August, 2011 for a period from 2011-2012 to 2016-2017. Besides, the respondent-institute is fully aided by the State Government. By virtue of grant of autonomous status to the respondent-institute, Statutes No. 593 to 642 have become applicable to the respondent-institute. The same pertain to grant of autonomous status of affiliated college / recognised institution / University institution, passed by the Senate at its Special Meeting held on 4 th December, 2001. By virtue of Statute 642, the recruitment of the teaching faculty and their qualifications, reservations, rules and service conditions of the teaching faculty shall be as per the Statutes prepared by the University, from time to time. That Statute further predicates that the service conditions, qualifications, recruitment rules and reservation rules for the appointment of the non-teaching employees shall be as per the standard Code (Terms and conditions of service) "prescribed by the Government", from time to time.
20. We may now revert to the definitions of "autonomy" and 25 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 "autonomous college" as contained in Section 2(5) and (6) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The same read thus:-
"2(5) Autonomy means a privilege of the university conferred by the statutes to permit a college, institution or a university department to conduct academic programmes and examinations, develop syllabus for the respective subjects and issue certificates of passing the examinations, etc. A college, institution or a university department which has been granted autonomy shall have full academic administrative and financial autonomy subject to the provisions of the Act and Statutes;
2(6) "autonomous college:, "autonomous institution" or autonomous department" means a college, institution or department to which autonomy is granted and is designated to be so by the Statutes;
21. On a bare perusal of these provisions, it is obvious that the privileges of the University conferred by the Statutes referred to therein are bestowed on the concerned college, which is granted autonomous status. The privileges referred to are to conduct academic programmes and examinations, develop syllabus for the respective subjects, issue certificate of passing of the examinations, etc. On grant of such autonomous status, the concerned college gets full academic, administrative and financial autonomy, subject to the provisions of the Act and Statutes. In other words, by the very nature of being autonomous college, such college acquires "full" academic,
26 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 administrative and financial autonomy, which is the hallmark of complete autonomy and independence. Such autonomous college cannot be governed by the restrictive norms specified in respect of other colleges affiliated to the University. Indeed, the autonomous college would continue to be an affiliated college of the University, but, in law, is bestowed full academic, administrative and financial autonomy, which can be regulated, subject to the provisions of the Act of 1994 or the Statutes made thereunder. The Statutes are made by the Senate of the University, which consists of members mentioned in Section 25(2) of the Act. The Senate is the principal authority for all financial estimates and budgetary appropriations and for providing social feedback to the University on current and future academic programmes. Section 89 of the Act of 1994, in particular sub-sections (2) and (3) thereof, is useful. The same reads thus:-
"89(2) The autonomous university department or institution or college or recognised institution, may constitute its authorities or bodies and exercise the powers and perform the functions and carry out the administrative, academic, financial and other activities of the university, as prescribed.
89(3) The autonomous university department or institution or college or recognised institution may prescribe its own courses of study, evolve its own teaching methods and hold examinations and test for students receiving instruction in it and award degrees or certificates of its own. Autonomous university department or institution or college or recognised
27 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 institution shall function with the objectives of promoting academic freedom and scholarship on the part of teachers and students which are essential to the fostering and development of and intellectual climate conducive to the pursuit of scholarship and excellence." (emphasis supplied) This provision re-states the position that, on grant of autonomous status to any college, such college is authorised to exercise the powers and perform the functions and carry out the administrative, academic, financial and other activities "of the University", as prescribed.
Further, it can prescribe its own course of study, evolve its own teaching methods and hold examinations and tests for students receiving instructions in it and award degrees and certificates on its own. It has to function with the objectives of promoting academic freedom and scholarship on the part of teachers and students which are essential to the fostering and development of an intellectual climate conducive to the pursuit of scholarship and excellence. On conjoint reading of the abovesaid provisions, it is obvious that the autonomous college enjoys privileges far higher than an ordinary affiliated college, even though it continues to be an affiliated college under the same University. The autonomous college has full academic and administrative autonomy, which can be regulated only by the 28 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 provisions of the Act and Statutes, and in no other manner. The autonomous college is accountable to the University and is governed only by the express provisions of the Act and the Statutes made by the Senate of the University.
22. Notably, an autonomous college can exercise the stated privileges of the University. No doubt, the Vice Chancellor of the University is the principal academic and executive officer of the University responsible for the development of academic programmes and general administration of the University to ensure efficiency and good order of the University. But that does not mean that the academic, administrative and financial autonomy of the autonomous colleges can be interfered with by the Vice Chancellor by issuing directions in respect of matters which are not so provided in the Act and the Statutes made by the Senate of the University qua the autonomous colleges. Indisputably, the purport of Section 14 of the Act of 1994 does not authorise him to do so. Taking any other view would mean that there will be hardly any qualitative distinction between the autonomous colleges and affiliated colleges under the 29 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 same University. The ordinary affiliated colleges are not only bound and governed by the Act, Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations, but also the directions issued by the Vice Chancellor in exercise of powers under Section 14(8) of the Act. Pertinently, the directions issued by the Vice Chancellor under Section 14(8) of the Act are required to be placed before the Management Council or other authority or body concerned for approval and draft of such of the Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations, as the case may be, required to be made in that behalf, is required to be simultaneously placed before such authority or body for consideration. The fact remains that the directions so issued cannot assume the status of a Statute. It is translated into Statute only after the Senate of the University passes it as such. Till the passing of the Statute by the Senate of the University, the directions of the Vice Chancellor may have binding effect on the affiliated colleges, but certainly, not on the autonomous colleges. As aforesaid, the autonomy regarding academic, administrative and financial matters of the autonomous colleges can be regulated only by an Act made by Legislature or the Statutes made by the Senate of the University, and not otherwise. In other words, on and from the date the college is 30 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 granted status of an autonomous college, even if it continues to remain an affiliated college of the same University, its academic, administrative and financial activities or powers can be controlled only by the provisions of the Act or the Statutes, and not otherwise.
23. A priori, the fulcrum of the argument, on the basis of which, the petitioners have challenged the constitution of the Selection Committee or the procedure followed by it, ought to fail. The directions issued by the Vice Chancellor were in exercise of power under Section 11(6)(b) of the Bombay University Act, 1994 [corresponding Section 14(8) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994]. From the short title of the said directions itself, it is amply clear that the same are limited to governing the non-Government constituent colleges and affiliated colleges of the University of Bombay (now University of Mumbai). The very nature of the title of the directions is suggestive of the fact that it has had no application to autonomous colleges, even though the concerned college continues to be an affiliated college under the same University.
31 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612
24. The petitioners have placed reliance on Section 81 of the Act of 1994, under Chapter X. The management applying for affiliation and Management, whose college or institution has been granted affiliation, is required to give and comply with the undertaking, amongst others, that it will observe the directions of the University as well as the Vice Chancellor. Indeed, such undertaking must have been given by respondent No. 1-institute at the initial stage, on the basis of which, affiliation has been granted. But, after it has acquired the status of an autonomous college, in law, that college can be and would be bound only by the provisions of the Act made by the Legislature and Statutes made by the Senate of the University. The undertaking given by it in anterior point of time would operate and can be enforced only for that limited purpose. Any other view would be in the teeth of the provisions of the Act of 1994, concerning the full academic, administrative and financial autonomy of such college, which can be controlled or limited only by the provisions of the Act and the Statutes.
32 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612
25. We have, therefore, no hesitation in taking the view that the principal challenge to the constitution of the Selection Committee or the selection process on the ground of non-compliance of directions issued by the Vice Chancellor, ought to fail.
26. The petitioners have not raised any ground that the constitution of the Selection Committee or the selection process is not in conformity with or consistent with the norms specified by the Government Resolution dated 1st March, 2008 or that of the AICTE.
The challenge is that the State Government is not authorised to issue any directions in respect of those matters. Admittedly, neither the Act of 1994 nor the Statutes made by the Senate of the University in respect of autonomous colleges or, for that matter, the AICTE has made any provision either with regard to the constitution of the Selection Committee or the selection procedure to be followed by such Committee. That means, there is complete autonomy to the autonomous colleges in respect of those matters, which are in the realm of administrative and/or academic activities and powers of the autonomous college. The respondent-institute, therefore, could have 33 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 proceeded to constitute its own Selection Committee for selecting the best candidate, keeping in mind its obligation that it has to function with the objective of promoting academic freedom and scholarship on the part of the teachers and students, which are essential to the fostering and development of an intellectual climate conducive to the pursuit of scholarship and excellence. However, as the respondent-
institute is fully aided Government college, in spite of the autonomy under the Act of 1994, it must abide by the directions of the State Government to become entitled for receiving grants. Indeed, the directions to be issued by the State Government must be in conformity with the norms regarding academic requirements prescribed either by the University or the AICTE. The State Government cannot issue directions regarding the norms for qualifications and experience of the staff to be appointed by the autonomous college lower than the norms specified by the University or the AICTE. To that extent, the State Government is within its authority to issue direction to the Institutes such as respondent No. 1. As a result, there is no substance in the challenge either to the authority of the State Government to issue directions as contained in its Resolution dated 1 st March, 2008 or the 34 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 constitution of the Selection Committee founded on the Government Resolution. As a matter of fact, in the advertisement in question, the qualification and experience specified is at least on par with the principal of an engineering institute as per the recent AICTE guidelines.
27. The petitioners, by way of amendment, have challenged only the Government Resolution dated 1 st March, 2008. The said Resolution records that the Government of Maharashtra is implementing a World Bank assisted "Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme" in the State. To effectuate the said programme, some of the well reputed institutes participating in this programme are granted autonomy and the Boards of Governance are established for these institutions. The said institutions are expected to acquire academic autonomy from the respective universities. The Government thought it appropriate to fix minimum eligibility criterion and modus of operandi for the appointment of faculty position in these institutions, so as to bring uniformity amongst these institutions and ensure the functioning of these institutions under the terms and 35 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 conditions prescribed in Government Resolution dated 31 st March, 2004 bearing No. WBP-2004/(341/04)/TE-6. The Government Resolution dated 1st March, 2008 also refers to the Government Resolution No. WBP-2005/ (885/05)/TE-6 dated 1st June, 2006.
However, neither the Resolution dated 31 st March, 2004 nor dated 1st June, 2006, as the case may be, has been challenged by the petitioners.
28. Concededly, the respondent-institution has constituted the Selection Committee as per the norms specified in Government Resolution dated 31st March, 2004. Clause 2.1(5) of the said Government Resolution deals with administrative and management aspects to be observed by the concerned colleges. Sub-clause (5) thereof reads thus:-
"(5) There will be the Selection Committee as under for the selection of the Directors:
Chairman: Chairman of Governing Body of the
Institution.
Vice Chairman: Principal Secretary/Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2 Member - Directors: Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai or Director I.I.T., Mumbai or equivalent Nationally reknown Institution.
Member-Secretary-Director, Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
After granting autonomy to this Institution, the person presently working on the post of Principal in the Autonomous Institution can remain on the post of 36 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 Director of the Institution for 2 years, if he desires so. But it will be necessary for making his selection by the Selection Committee for remaining on the post thereafter. If he has not been reselected, he will be adjusted on the equivalent post of of the same salary grade in the same or in any other Institution. The tenure of the Directors selected by the above Selection Committee will be of 5 years."
29. As regards Government Resolution dated 1 st March, 2008, it deals with qualifications, experience and other requirement of Director under paragraph (B). It provides that an eminent person with academic and administrative experience of high caliber having qualification and experience at least on par with those of Professor is eligible to hold the post of Director. In other words, the qualifications and experience prescribed by the State Government in these Government Resolutions cannot be said to be inconsistent with the norm specified by AICTE in that regard. As aforesaid, the respondent-
institution constituted the Selection Committee as per the norm contained in Government Resolution dated 31 st March, 2004. Further, the qualifications and experience prescribed for the post of Director in Government Resolution dated 1st March, 2008; and more particularly advertisement inviting applications issued by the respondent-institute is in conformity with the qualifications and experience prescribed by 37 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 AICTE. We, therefore, fail to understand as to how the Government Resolution can be said to be without authority of law and for the same reason, to question the constitution of the Selection Committee.
30. That takes us to the original ground urged in the writ petition that the decision of the Selection Committee to resort to elimination of candidates is without authority of law, as it is neither provided in the advertisement in question and is inconsistent with the directions issued by the Vice Chancellor. The later issue has already been considered elaborately hitherto. We do not wish to dilate on that matter any further except to observe that the directions issued by the Vice-Chancellor are not applicable in the present case. The other argument that the short listing process was not indicated in the advertisement in question, even that is devoid of any substance. As a matter of fact, the decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the petitioners in B. Ramakichenin (supra), answers the issue against the petitioners. Even in that case, it was argued that, if there is no Rule providing for short listing, nor mentioned in the advertisement calling for applications for the post, the selection body could not have resorted 38 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 to short listing procedure. This contention has been negatived. The Court has noted that the selection body has implicit authority in that behalf and can resort to short listing by prescribing certain minimum marks and only those who have got standard marks could be called for the interview. This can be done even if the advertisement does not mention that only those who have minimum marks will be considered or appointed on the post. The Court went on to observe that short listing is only a practical via media, which has been accepted by the Courts in various decisions. It enables to overcome great difficulties for selecting and appointing authorities in interviewing large number of candidates. The judgment, however, notes that, if a prescribed method of short listing has been mentioned in the rule or advertisement, then, that method alone has to be followed. This dictum has no application to the present case, as neither the Act nor the Statutes applicable to the respondent institute, much less the directions issued by the AICTE mention any method of short listing. The underlying reason to resort to short listing of candidates is to make the interview and discussion process more meaningful and effective so as to identify the best candidate amongst the applicants who can be 39 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 appointed on the post of Director.
31. The petitioners, however, contend that the process was to fill one post of Director and only 20 applications were received.
In that case, it was obligatory for the Selection Committee to interview candidates and find out merits of each candidate in accordance with the qualifications advertised. This argument was founded on clause 6(3)(d) of the directions issued by the Vice Chancellor. As noted earlier, the directions of Vice Chancellor have no application to the autonomous colleges. Besides, in absence of any specific guidelines in the Act or the Statutes or the directions issued by the AICTE, the respondent No. 1 was obliged to abide by the directions issued by the State Government, which are equally binding on the respondent-
institute, as the Government has a participatory role in the institute, being fully funded from the State exchequer. The fact that only 20 applications were received does not mean that the decision taken by the Selection Committee on that aspect is vulnerable to attack of being unjust, non-objective or devoid of rational criterion. Notably, in the case of M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 77, there were only four posts in General Category, 40 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612 against which, 188 applications were received. By resorting to short listing of candidates, the Selection Committee invited only 71 candidates for interview. The Apex Court upheld the action of the Selection Committee. The Apex Court did not interfere with the said discretion exercised by the Selection Committee. In the present case, on account of the short listing procedure invoked by the Selection Committee, only ten candidates secured the benchmark specified by the Selection Committee. As is noted earlier, the process involves interview and discussion of the qualified candidates.
Therefore, there is nothing wrong in limiting the number to manageable figure, so as to devote proper time and attention and objectively assess each of the candidates to find out the best candidate suited for the post of Director of the institute, which is, admittedly, a premier institute in Maharashtra. We agree with the submission of the respondents that the short listing procedure is also in the nature of adjudging the merits of the candidates. Accordingly, we are not impressed with the challenge to the short listing of candidates. We hold that it was not impermissible in law or unwarranted in the fact situation of the present case.
41 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:36 ::: 96612
32. The next question is: Whether the procedure of short listing of candidates can be said to have been evolved by the Selection Committee itself? From the original record as produced before us, and the affidavit of the Member of the Selection Committee dated 9 th May, 2012, it is noticed that the Search Committee was appointed to assist the Selection Committee in the decision-making process. The Search Committee submitted its recommendation, firstly, about the necessity of short listing of candidates and, secondly, about the candidates who would qualify to be invited for interview and discussion. That recommendation was duly considered in the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 26th April, 2012. It was open to the Selection Committee to disagree with the said recommendation and take some other decision. The Selection Committee, however, chose to accept the recommendation so made and proceeded on that basis. Thus, it is a case of decision of the Selection Committee itself and, at any rate, ratification of the recommendation made by the Search Committee.
The petitioners would rely on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of The State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) to contend that, by 42 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:37 ::: 96612 ratification, the infirmity cannot be cured. In our considered opinion, this decision has no bearing on the factual matrix involved in the present case. In that case, the selection body proceeded with the selection process in absence of the representation of the Director of Higher Education, which was essential. The District Education Officer, at a later point of time, validated and ratified the said proceedings. The Court found that the Selection Committee had proceeded without the quorum and, therefore, the business transacted in such a meeting was vitiated. The absentee cannot be called upon to ratify the conclusion already reached in such meeting. In the present case, however, all the members of the Selection Committee had met on 26th April, 2012 and considered the recommendation made by the Search Committee, which was submitted only to assist them in the process. Thus, the Selection Committee itself took the final decision in the matter and proceeded with the selection process on that basis.
33. The next argument of the petitioners is that decision of short listing of candidates taken by the Selection Committee lacks objectivity and rational criterion. This argument is advanced on the 43 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:37 ::: 96612 basis of averments in paragraph 9 of the reply-affidavit of respondent No. 1 dated 4th May, 2012, which have been extracted in the earlier part of this decision. In our opinion, this argument is only presumptuous. From the original file produced before us, the criterion of assigning marks to the candidates on the basis of their achievements has been clearly mentioned. That criterion has met the approval of the Selection Committee. Further, case of each candidate was assessed on the basis of that criterion. The norm so specified, in our opinion, by no standards, can be said to be non-objective or irrational. Therefore, even this argument does not take the matter any further for the petitioners. As a mater of fact, petitioner No. 2, admittedly, possesses only requisite qualifications. He does not possess the desirable qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. Petitioner No. 2, in any case, cannot succeed. As regards petitioner No.1, he possesses requisite as well as desirable qualifications and experience. His case has been assessed by the Search Committee in the first place. That recommendation is approved by the Selection Committee. He has failed to secure above 70 marks and, therefore, stood eliminated, though eligible to be considered as per the norm prescribed in the 44 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:37 ::: 96612 advertisement. Consequent to elimination during the short listing of candidates, he cannot be considered for appointment to the said post.
Only those candidates who have secured more than 70 marks were entitled to be called for interview and discussion by the Selection Committee. Even though the grounds other than the grounds articulated in the writ petition or in the rejoinder-affidavit have been urged before us, no argument has been advanced that petitioner No. 1 ought to have been assigned more than 70 marks on the basis of the norms indicated in the Minutes of Search Committee Meeting held on April 17, 2012 referred to above. If such grievance is available to petitioner No. 1, that can be considered on its own merits. For the reasons stated above, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the petition is devoid of merits.
34. That takes us to the next argument of the petitioners.
It was argued that the respondent Institute in the past has followed the norms specified in the Vice-Chancellor's directions. Reliance was placed on the previous advertisements issued by the Respondent 45 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:37 ::: 96612 Institute to fill up the post of professors. Those advertisements and the selection process was, however, prior to grant of autonomous status to the respondent institute, which happened only on 20 th August, 201. As a result, no fault can be found with the Respondent Institute for following the procedure prescribed under the Vice-Chancellor's directions as at the relevant time, the status of the respondent institute was only that of affiliated college of the University of Mumbai.
ig Assuming that it had adopted the said procedure, even after having acquired the autonomous status, it is not open to argue that Respondent No.1 was obliged to follow the same norm even though in law directives of the Vice-Chancellor were and cannot be binding on the autonomous college. There is nothing wrong if, lateron, the autonomous college were to follow and insist that it would abide only by the regime prescribed under the Act or the Statutes framed by the Senate of the University and the directions issued by the State Government - which were consistent with the qualifications, experience norms specified by the AICTE. For the same reason, even the argument of the petitioners that other autonomous colleges are following the directions issued by the 46 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:37 ::: 96612 Vice-Chancellor will have to be negatived. Unless it is held that the directions issued by the Vice-Chancellor are binding even on the colleges which are granted status of autonomous colleges, the argument under consideration cannot be taken forward.
35. That takes us to the argument of the petitioners which has not been mentioned in the writ petition or the draft amendment.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the circular issued by the University of Mumbai under the signature of In-Charge Registrar. The said Circular has been produced on record by Respondent No.3 Deputy Director of Technical Education.
Accompanying the said circular, are the rules regarding selection committee, selection procedure and eligibility criterion and qualifications and equivalence. However, these rules are general rules and not made applicable to autonomous colleges. Moreover, the Rules have been accepted by the Academic Council of the University, as is stated in the circular, in its meeting held on 21 st December, 2011. Assuming that these rules are applicable to engineering colleges such as the Respondent No.1 institute, however, 47 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:37 ::: 96612 these rules will have no application to autonomous colleges. As aforesaid, it is only the provisions in the Act made by Legislature or the Statutes passed by the Senate of the University, the academic and Administrative autonomy of the autonomous colleges can be regulated. As aforesaid, there is neither any provision in the Act made by the Legislature or the Statutes made by the Senate of the University which govern the field. Hence, even this argument does not commend to us.
36. In the draft amendment, the first relief claimed is to quash and set aside the G.R. dated 1 st March, 2008. We have already dealt with the efficacy of the said resolution. We have held that the Government, having participatory role in the affairs of the respondent institute, being fully (100%) aided from the State exchequer, is competent to issue directions regarding financial or administrative matters pertaining to the Institutions such as the respondent Institute, subject, however, to such directions being consistent with the provisions of the Act of 1994 and the Statutes 48 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:37 ::: 96612 made thereunder and the norms specified by the AICTE. We have already held that the guidelines contained in the G.R. dated 1 st March, 2008 in respect of the constitution of Selection Committee or the procedure to be followed by the said Committee are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or the Statutes as also the norms specified by the AICTE.
37. Our attention was invited to the notification dated 5 th March, 2010 issued by the AICTE. The said notification does not provide for constitution of the Selection Committee but only deals with the qualifications and experience. As regards the post of Director, the same reads thus:
Program Cadre Qualification Experience Princi- Qualification as Minimum of 10 years experience in pal/ above that is for teaching / Research / Industry out of Director the post of which at least 3 years shall be at the Professor, as level of Professor.
applicable Or
Minimum of 13 years experience in
Post PhD teaching, and / or Research and / or
publications and industry.
guiding PhD
students is In case of research experience, good
highly desirable academic record and books / research paper publications / IPR / patents record shall be required as deemed fit 49 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:37 ::: 96612 by the expert members of the Selection committee.
If the experience in industry is considered, the same shall be at managerial level equivalent to Professor level with active participation record in devising / designing, developing, planning, executing, analyzing, quality control, innovating, training, technical books / research paper publications / IPR / patents, etc. as deemed fit by the expert members of the Selection ig committee.
Flair for Management and Leadership is essential.
In case of Architecture, Professional Practice of 10 years as certified by the Council of Architecture shall also be considered valid.
38. We have already noticed the qualification and experience mentioned in the advertisement. The same is founded on the recent guidelines issued by the AICTE itself. The G.R. dated 1 st March, 2008, as noted earlier, in fact does not provide for qualification and experience lower than provided by AICTE. Merely because it observes that the qualification and experience must be at least on par with those of professors, does not mean that it is inconsistent with the norm specified by the AICTE. In fact, we are required to answer the controversy on the basis of the qualification and experience 50 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:37 ::: 96612 prescribed in the advertisement, which, we have found, is consistent with the recent guidelines of AICTE. Accordingly, there is no merit in the challenge to the G.R. dated 1st March, 2008.
39. The second additional relief claimed in the draft amendment is to declare that the manner and mode of selection and appointment of Director in the respondent Institute is governed by the Vice-Chancellor's directions. We have already dealt with this aspect at great length. We have held that the Vice-Chancellor's directions have no application to the autonomous colleges. For, the autonomous colleges have full academic, administrative and financial autonomy, which can be regulated only by provisions of the Act made by the Legislature or Statutes made by the Senate of the University in exercise of power under Section 52 of the Act of 1994.
Accordingly, the second additional relief in the draft amendment will have to be rejected.
40. The third additional relief claimed by way of draft amendment is to declare that the selection of the Director of the 51 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:37 ::: 96612 Respondent Institute pursuant to the G.R. dated 1 st March, 2008 is a nullity in the eye of law. This relief also will have to be negatived keeping in mind the observations made by us in the earlier part of the decision. We have held that, in absence of any provision in the Act of 1994 or the Statutes framed thereunder or the guidelines issued by the AICTE on the field covered by the impugned Government Resolutions, the State Government is competent to issue directions to the Respondent Institute being fully (100%) aided by the State Government from the public exchequer. The State Government, therefore, would be justified in issuing guidelines to such institutions so as to bring uniformity amongst all such institutions which are funded by the State Government in the same manner. However, the guidelines or directives should be consistent and subject to the provisions of the Act of 1994 or the Statutes made thereunder and the guidelines or norms specified by the AICTE in respect of the academic matters. Suffice it to observe that in the present case, the advertisement refers to the qualifications and experience which is consistent with the recent guidelines of AICTE. Hence, even the third additional relief will have to be negatived.
52 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:37 ::: 96612
41. We, therefore, conclude that there is no infirmity in the constitution of Selection Committee by Respondent No.1 institute nor in the process followed by the Selection Committee regarding short listing of candidates or in the norm formulated for short listing the candidates and the assessment of the candidates on that basis.
We further hold that there is no infirmity in the selection process for the post of Director of Respondent No.1 institute by excluding the petitioners on account of short listing.
42. As a result, this petition fails. The same deserves to be dismissed.
43. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. The Ad-interim relief granted on 26th April, 2012 is vacated, forthwith.
44. At this stage, the Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the petitioners may consider of filing appeal against this decision for which reason the ad-interim relief be continued for some time.
53 of 54 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:37 ::: 96612 This prayer is opposed by the Counsel for Respondent No.1.
We have already noticed the urgency, and because of which, we took up this petition for immediate hearing, without insisting on technicalities of amendment of the petition. Grant of any interim relief would result in prolonging the process of appointment of the selected candidate which cannot brook delay because of resignation tendered by the present incumbent as back as on 13 th January, 2012 and moreso, because, the admissions to the courses conducted by the Respondent College for the new academic year would commence from June, 2012. Accordingly, prayer for continuation of interim relief is rejected.
S.S. SHINDE, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.
54 of 54
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:36:37 :::