Bombay High Court
Dr. Amrapali W/O Atul Akhare vs Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi ... on 27 February, 2020
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Vinay Joshi
WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 1 Common Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 2444/2019
Dr. Amrapali W/o Atul Akhare,
Age:41 years, Occ: Service,
R/o Ravi Nagar, Near Sudhir Colony,
Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Akola, Through the Registrar, Akola,
Tq. and Dist. Akola.
2. Dr. Manish Y. Ladole,
Age: Adult, Occ: Service (Associate Professor),
College of Agriculture, Akola, Dr. Panjabrao
Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, P.O. Krishi
Nagar, Akola - 444 104.
3. Dr. Manoj W. Marwar,
Age: Adult, Occ: Service (Associate Professor),
College of Agriculture, Akola, Dr. Panjabrao
Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, P.O. Krishi
Nagar, Akola - 444 104.
4. Dr. Rajendra D. Ratnaparkhi,
Age: Adult, Occ: Service (Associate Professor),
Department of Agriculture Botany,
Post Graduate Institute, Dr. Panjabrao
Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, P.O. Krishi
Nagar, Akola - 444 104.
5. Dr. Praful P. Gawande,
Age: Adult, Occ: Service (Associate Professor),
Central Demonstration Farm, Wani Rambhapur,
Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Akola, Post Nipana, Tq. Akola, Dist. Akola-444 102. RESPONDENTS
Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, counsel for petitioner.
Shri Abhay Sambre, counsel for respondent no.1.
Shri S.S. Shingane, counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5.
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 :::
WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 2 Common Judgment
WRIT PETITION No. 2471/2019
1. Dr. Manish Ramdas Deshmukh,
Aged 49 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Shrikrupa Society, Near T.T.N. College,
Keshao Nagar, Akola.
2. Dr. Sanjay Uttamrao Kakade,
Aged 47 years, Occu. Service,
R/o: Flat No.B-1, Ma-Vaishnavi
Residency-7, Ravi Nagar, Akola. PETITIONERS
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Department of Agricultural, Animal Husbandry,
Dairy Development and Fisheries,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. Maharashtra Agricultural Universities
Recruitment Board, Pune, Maharashtra Council
for Agricultural Research, through its Chairman,
132-B, Bhamburda, Bhosale Nagar, Pune-7.
3. Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Akola, Through its Registrar, Krishi Nagar, Akola.
4. Dr. Prashant C. Pagar,
Aged Major, Occu: Service, Office of Associate Dean,
College of Agriculture, Maharajbag, Nagpur.
5. Dr. Sachin N. Potkile,
Aged Major, Occu: Service, Office of Associate Dean,
College of Agriculture, Maharajbag, Nagpur.
6. Dr. D.D. Mankar,
Aged Major, Occu: Service, Office of Associate Dean,
College of Agriculture, Maharajbag, Nagpur.
7. Dr. Varsha A. Apotikar,
Aged Major, Occu. Service, Office of Associate Dean,
College of Agriculture, Krishinagar, Akola.
8. Dr. Vikas V. Goud,
Aged Major, Occu. Service,
Officer Incharge, Agriculture Research Station,
Washim, Dist. Washim.
9. Dr. Pravin V. Mahatale,
Aged Major, Occu. Service, Office of Associate Dean,
College of Agriculture, Sonpur, Dist. Gadchiroli.
::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 :::
WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 3 Common Judgment
10. Dr. Vinod A. Khadse,
Aged Major, Occu. Service,
Office of Director of Extension Education,
Dr.Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Krushi Nagar, Akola. RESPONDENTS
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, counsel for petitioners.
Ms H.N. Jaipurkar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1.
Shri Abhay Sambre, counsel for respondent no.3.
Shri S.V. Manohar, Senior Advocate with Shri S.S. Khedkar, counsel for
respondent no.4.
Shri N.R. Tekade, counsel for respondent no.7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 2806/2019
1. Ms. Vanita Khushalrao Khobarkar,
Aged 40 years, Occ: Service,
R/o Gurudwara, Gurunanak Ashram,
At Post Kondhali, Tq. Katol, District Nagpur.
2. Dr. Shivaji Chaitram Nagpure,
Aged 49 years, Occ. Service,
R/o: Datta Collony, Trimurti Nagar, behind
Gorakshan Sansthan, 18/2, 7/B, Akola. PETITIONERS
.....VERSUS.....
1. Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Post Office Krushi Nagar, Akola 444 102,
Through its Registrar.
2. Dr. U.T. Dangore,
Associate Professor (Agriculture Economics),
Head of Department of Agriculture Economics
and Statistic Section, Maharaj Bag,
College of Agriculture, Nagpur.
3. Dr. V.J. Rathod,
Associate Professor (Agriculture Economics)
c/o Head of Department of Agriculture Economics,
Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth,
Post Office Krushi Nagar, Akola-444 102. RESPONDENTS
Shri M.M. Sudame, counsel for petitioners.
Shri Abhay Sambre, counsel for respondent no.1.
Shri S.V. Manohar, Senior Advocate with Shri S.S. Khedkar and Shri N.A.
Gaikwad, counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3.
::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 :::
WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 4 Common Judgment
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND VINAY JOSHI, JJ.
ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON : 28TH JANUARY, 2020
JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED ON : 27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
JUDGMENT
Since common challenges are raised in all these writ petitions, they are heard together by issuing RULE and making it returnable forthwith.
2. Each petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of promotion issued thereby promoting Assistant Professors to the post of Associate Professors by Dr.Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola (for short, 'the University'). In Writ Petition No.2444 of 2019, the respondent nos.2 to 5 have been promoted on the post of Associate Professor in the subject of Agricultural Botany. In Writ Petition No.2471 of 2019, the respondent nos.4 to 10 have been promoted on the post of Associate Professor in the subject of Agronomy and in Writ Petition No.2806 of 2019, the respondent nos.2 and 3 have been promoted on the post of Associate Professor in the subject of Agricultural Economics.
3. On 16.11.2017, the University issued a notification inviting proposals from eligible candidates for effecting promotions to the post of Associate Professor. That notification referred to an earlier letter issued by the University dated 17.10.2017. In the notification it was stated that ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 5 Common Judgment the last date for submission of proposals was 06.11.2017. By the said notification, the Scrutiny and Assessment Committee for considering the respective candidatures for promotion was constituted. On 18.01.2018, the Registrar of the University issued a communication to all the concerned Assistant Professors that on scrutiny of the said proposals the Committee had found that majority of the proposals did not provide evidence to establish eligibility as per the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities Statutes, 1990 (for short, 'the Statute') and especially Statute 73. The candidates were thus requested to submit relevant documents to establish their eligibility by 20.01.2018. In the meanwhile, on 25.01.2018 in view of the fact that the process of promotion was underway, the Vice Chancellor of the University issued orders of temporary promotion thereby promoting various Assistant Professors to the post of Associate Professor on ad-hoc basis for a period of eleven months. Thereafter on 21.12.2018 this period of eleven months was further extended for a period of one month under the emergency powers of the Vice Chancellor. The extended period was till 24.01.2019.
4. On 03.01.2019, a special meeting of the Academic Council was held. Subject No.12/2019 pertained to the modalities in the matter of effecting promotions on the post of Associate Professor especially in the light of Statute 75 of the Statutes. Resolution No.10/2019 was ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 6 Common Judgment accordingly passed in which it was stated that Statute 75 permitted modifications to be made in the manner in which the Selection Committee had to discharge its functions. Reference was made to an earlier meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Director, Higher Education on 27.11.2018 in which it was decided that for effecting promotions to the posts of Assistant Professor and Associate Professor the seniority of the candidates and minimum educational qualification as prescribed by Statute 73 (Schedule III) alongwith the Academic Performance Index (API) points obtained under the Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) and confidential reports should be taken into consideration. Similarly, the candidature of eligible candidates in the ratio of 1:2 instead of the earlier ratio of 1:5 was resolved to be taken into consideration after revoking the earlier decision. If no eligible candidate was available by applying the ratio of 1:2 then the candidates were to be considered on the basis of their seniority. This procedure was adopted and the proposal was forwarded to the Executive Council for its acceptance.
5. Thereafter on 07.01.2019, the meeting of the Executive Council of the University was held. Subject No.28/2019 pertained to deciding the manner in which the Selection Committee under Statute 75 would discharge its functions. Resolution No.26/2019 was accordingly ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 7 Common Judgment passed by the Executive Council and the recommendations as made by the Academic Council in its meeting held on 03.01.2019 came to be accepted in the same manner as was proposed by the Academic Council. On 01.06.2019, another special meeting of the Executive Council was held. As per Subject No.67/2019, it was resolved that the earlier resolution bearing No.26/2019 that was passed in the special meeting held on 07.01.2019 be partly modified. It was observed that in the earlier resolution it had been mentioned that since the proceedings with regard to promotion were sub judice the proceedings would be completed on that basis. It was also decided to appoint an expert three member committee to examine the aspect of merit and seniority. The Hon'ble Chancellor was authorized to take a decision in the matter.
6. On the recommendations of the Selection Board, the Vice Chancellor issued orders of promotion. In Writ Petition No.2444 of 2019 the respondent nos.2 to 5 have been promoted, in Writ Petition No.2471 of 2019 the respondent nos.4 to 10 have been promoted while in Writ Petition No.2806 of 2019 the respondent nos.2 and 3 have been promoted. Being aggrieved by the orders of promotion, the petitioners have challenged the same in these writ petitions. The resolution dated 07.01.2019 passed by the Executive Council has been challenged in Writ Petition No.2471 of 2019.
::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 :::
WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 8 Common Judgment
7. Shri A.C.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2444/2019 submitted that as per Statute 52 the eligibility criteria for consideration of a candidate prescribed minimum API score based on the norms depicted in Appendix II while for the purposes of evaluation for promotion the actual API score was material. However, the promotions in question were made by taking into consideration the minimum API score as 300. As a result the appropriate criteria for the purposes of evaluation which was the actual API score as per Appendix II of Statute 52 had not been taken into consideration. This had the effect of ignoring the claim of meritorious candidates like the petitioner. He submitted that it was undisputed that the actual API score of the petitioner was more than the respondents who were promoted. It was then submitted that those candidates having higher API score than the petitioner had not been impleaded as the petitioner was not in a position to challenge their promotions, they being more meritorious than the petitioner. Since the promoted respondents had lessor API score than the petitioner, their promotion had been challenged. The respondents had also not pleaded the aspect of estoppel though said aspect was sought to be argued on their behalf. Restricting the zone of consideration to 1:2 resulted in ignoring the claim of meritorious candidates who fell in the zone of consideration as per the ratio of 1:5. This change in the ratio ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 9 Common Judgment resulted in changing the criteria that was existing when the vacancies arose especially when the requirement was that promotions had to be made on the basis of merit and seniority. Referring to the representations dated 22.01.2019 and 27.01.2019 made by the petitioners, it was submitted that there was no question of any estoppel from challenging the illegal promotions made by the Selection Committee. It was thus submitted that the promotions granted to the respondent nos. 2 to 5 were liable to be set aside and in their place the petitioner was liable to be promoted.
8. Shri B.G.Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2471/2019 in addition to the contentions referred to hereinabove submitted that the University erred in ignoring merit as a criteria for the purposes of making promotions. The criteria for evaluation as prescribed was merit and seniority and therefore minimum eligibility which was taken into consideration by the University while evaluating the merit of candidates was contrary to the Statutes. It was his submission that the actual API score was the foundation for the purposes of making evaluation on merit and thus fixing of benchmark at API score of 300 was illegal. Referring to the provisions of Statutes 52 and 77 along with various Tables appended to the said Statutes, it was submitted ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 10 Common Judgment that the same indicated the manner in which the merit of a candidate had to be determined. The passing of resolutions dated 03.1.2019 and 07.01.2019 by the Academic Council as well as the Executive Council respectively was contrary to the procedure prescribed and therefore no right accrued in favour of the respondent nos. 4 to 10 for sustaining the orders of promotion issued in their favour. Reference was also made to the stand taken by the University in Writ Petition No. 5769/2010 [Madan S/o Nanaji Jadhav vs. Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, through its Registrar & Others ]. Referring to the order dated 19.07.2012 it was pointed out that it was the stand of the University therein that the promotions had to be made on the basis of merit. The promotions that were under challenge in that writ petition were sought to be supported by contending that the candidates promoted were more meritorious than the petitioners. It was therefore not permissible for the University to now change the criteria. Reference was also made to the representation made by the petitioners on 27.01.2019 raising various objections to the change in criteria for promotion. In support of his submissions the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Union of India & Others Vs. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan & Another [(2000) 6 SCC 698], Premlata Joshi Vs. Chief Secretary, State of Uttarakhand & Others [(2013) 16 SCC 482], B.Amrutha Lakshmi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others [(2013) 16 SCC 440] and Major Yogendera Narain Yadav Etc. Vs. Shri ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 11 Common Judgment Bindeshwar Prasad & Others [(1997) 2 SCC 150]. It was thus submitted that the orders of promotion issued in favour of the respondent nos. 4 to 10 were liable to the set aside and the petitioners ought to be promoted in their place.
9. Shri M.M.Sudame, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2806/2019 after referring to various provisions of the Act of 1983 and especially Sections 28, 31, 34 and 38 read with the relevant Statutes submitted that since promotions were liable to be made on the criteria of merit and seniority that criteria could not have been changed by passing resolutions as was done by the Academic Council on 03.01.2019 and the Executive Council on 07.01.2019. According to him though there was no right in any candidate to be promoted, there was definitely a right to be considered for promotion and such right of consideration could not be defeated by altering the criteria that was prescribed by the Statutes mid-way during the process of promotion. The vacancies in question were existing prior to 2017. By issuing Notification on 16.11.2017 the Scrutiny and Assessment Committee had been formed and the eligible candidates were called upon to submit their applications. When the said Notification was issued zone of consideration was constituted in the ratio of 1:5 and promotion was to be granted on the basis of merit and seniority. In the meanwhile temporary promotions ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 12 Common Judgment came to be made by the Vice-Chancellor after which initially on 03.01.2019 and thereafter on 07.01.2019 by passing the relevant resolutions, the Academic Council as well as the Executive Council altered the zone of consideration to 1:2. Similarly, the selection criteria also came to be changed and ignoring the aspect of merit/by giving lessor weightage to merit, seniority was given importance. Placing reliance on the decision in V.V.Rangaiah & Others Versus J.Sreenivasa Rao & Others [AIR 1983 SC 852] it was submitted that the relevant rules as prevailing on the occurrence of the vacancy ought to be taken into consideration and the vacancy could not be filled in by modifying or altering such rules. It was submitted that the Academic Performance Index (API) was taken as 300 by treating it as the benchmark and the evaluation of the candidates was done on that basis.
The learned counsel further submitted that there was no question of any estoppel being attracted to the challenge as raised by the petitioners to the promotion of the concerned respondents. Since wrong criteria had been applied while making promotions there could be no estoppel against law. Moreover the petitioners had made timely representations dated 27.01.2019 and 28.02.2019 raising a grievance with regard to change of criteria while making promotions. He also submitted that it was not necessary to implead such meritorious candidates who had been promoted in the light of the fact that the merit ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 13 Common Judgment of those particular candidates was more than the petitioners. Such promotees even otherwise deserved to be promoted. Since the merit of the petitioners was more than the respondents who had been promoted, a challenge was raised to their promotion. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in U.V. Mahadkar Versus Subhash Anand Chavan & Others [(2016) 1 SCC 536], Badrinath Versus Government of Tamil Nadu & Others [(2000) 8 SCC 395], Nar Singh Pal Versus Union of India & Others [(2000) 3 SCC 588], Sanchit Bansal & Another Versus Joint Admission Board & Others [(2012) 1 SCC 157], Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Another Versus T.K.Suryanarayan & Others [(1997) 6 SCC 766], Sant Ram Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & Others [AIR 1967 SC 1910], Union of India Versus M.L.Capoor & Others [AIR 1974 SC 87] and M/s. Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others [(1989) 4 SCC 378]. It was thus submitted that since the petitioners were more meritorious than the respondents who were promoted when the appropriate criteria was applied, they were entitled to be issued orders of promotion after setting aside the orders passed in favour of the said respondents.
10. Shri Abhay Sambre, learned counsel for the University opposed all the aforesaid submissions and supported the promotion of the ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 14 Common Judgment concerned respondents. At the outset, it was submitted that the petitioner no.1 in Writ Petition No. 2806/2019 was not in the zone of consideration as eligible candidates in the ratio of 1:2 had been considered and therefore she had no right to challenge the promotions as made. Similarly, the promotion of Shri S.T.Kendre had not been challenged by the petitioners and thus the said writ petition was not liable to be entertained. As regards Writ Petition No.2444/2019 it was submitted that the petitioner was not in the zone of consideration as she was placed at serial no.27. As five posts were to be filled in by promotion, there was no reason to entertain the grievance of the petitioner. The zone of consideration at ratio of 1:2 as applied was in view of the resolution dated 07.01.2019 passed by the Executive Council. He then submitted that the score obtained as indicated by the API was not the sole criterion for the purposes of determining the merit of the respective candidates. Since Assistant Professors under the University were required to serve at different places, some of which were urban areas while some were rural areas, all eligible Assistant Professors were not similarly situated. It was possible that an Assistant Professor serving at an urban place on account of avenues available to him could be in a position to have a higher API score while an Assistant Professor serving at a rural place would not get sufficient opportunities to improve his API score. It was for that purpose that API score of 300 was determined in accordance ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 15 Common Judgment with the Statutes while considering the respective merit of the eligible candidates. It was then submitted that the petitioners having participated in the selection process while effecting promotions they were now estopped from contending that the right criteria had not been adopted. On the contrary as per the notice published by the University the petitioners had applied for being considered for promotion and on not being so promoted, they had sought to challenge the promotion process. It was denied that the University had changed its stand from the one taken in Writ Petition No. 5769/2010. Moreover since all promoted candidates had not been joined as respondents, it would not be permissible to interfere with the promotion process in their absence. On these counts, it was submitted that the challenge as raised was not liable to be accepted. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Ranjan Kumar & Others Versus State of Bihar & Others [(2014) 16 SCC 187] and Pragjyotish Gaonlia Bank (now Known as Assam Gramin Vikas Bank) & Another Versus Brijlal Dass [(2009) 3 SCC 323].
11. Shri Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent nos. 4 to 10 in Writ Petition No. 2471 of 2019 and respondent nos. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition No. 2806 of 2019 submitted that the promotions as effected by the University were in accordance with ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 16 Common Judgment Statutes 52 and 77. The criteria for promotion which was merit and seniority was applied and merely because the minimum API score of 300 was initially taken into consideration, it could not be said that the aspect of merit had been ignored. Each candidate promoted had more merit than the petitioners and it could not be said that consideration of API score of 300 indicated absence of merit. The resolution of the Executive Council dated 07.01.2019 was required to be considered in the proper perspective and it was clear that if meritorious candidates were not available in the zone of consideration of 1:2 then promotions ought to be made considering the seniority of the eligible candidates. There was no question of calling upon all eligible candidates who were not in the zone of consideration. He also referred to the resolution dated 22.07.2019 by the Executive Council in that regard. Since the petitioners had applied for consideration for their cases for promotion after the resolution dated 07.01.2019 and as they had participated in the selection process, it was not now permissible for them to challenge the promotions as made. The adoption of the ratio 1:2 was also not challenged by the petitioners and hence there was no question of going into legality or otherwise of the procedure adopted by the University while making the promotions. The Court would be slow in undertaking any exercise of examining the respective merit of the candidates. He thus submitted that the criteria as adopted by the University was legal and the promotions as made did not ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 17 Common Judgment deserve to be interfered with as the same were in accordance with law.
Shri S.S. Shingne, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5 in Writ Petition No.2444 of 2019 adopted the aforesaid submissions.
12. Since the challenge in these writ petitions is to the promotion orders issued to the concerned respondents pursuant to the recommendations of the Selection Board which is an expert body, the scope for interference with its assessment would be limited. It is well settled that the Courts are not equipped nor do they have the academic or the technical background to substitute themselves in place of professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of education - All India Council for Technical Education Versus Surinder Kumar Dhawan [(2009) 11 SCC 726]. Similarly, the Court would be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to the opinion expressed by professional men possessing expertise and experience - Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Versus Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27]. The following observations in Sanchit Bansal (supra) as laid in paragraph 27 of the decision can be kept in mind while adjudicating the challenges as raised ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 18 Common Judgment in the writ petition Paragraph 27 reads thus:-
"27. Thus, the process of evaluation, the process of ranking and selection of candidates for admission with reference to their performance, the process of achieving the objective of selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the specialised courses, are all technical matters in academic field and the Courts will not interfere in such processes. The Courts will interfere only if they find all or any of the following: (i) violation of any enactment, statutory rules and regulations; (ii) mala fides or ulterior motives to assist or enable private gain to someone or cause prejudice to anyone; or where the procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious. "
Thus, without going into the wisdom and correctness of the assessment made by the Selection Board, the aspect whether the procedure prescribed by the Statute in the matter of making promotions can be examined and if it is found that such prescribed procedure has not been followed or there has been departure from the mode prescribed in a manner not in accordance with law, a case for interference would be made out. The decision making process rather than the decision itself can be examined. The manner in which the promotions have been made by the Selection Board can be examined to the said limited extent.
13. Before considering the challenges on merit, the objection as raised to the petitioners being estopped from challenging the promotions of the respective respondents needs to be considered. According to the ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 19 Common Judgment University as well as the promoted respondents, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the orders of promotion on the ground that the petitioners having participated in the process of promotion without any objection they were precluded from subsequently challenging the decision of the Selection Board. In other words, having submitted themselves for consideration of their merit in seeking promotion, it would not be permissible for the petitioners to now turn around and challenge the outcome of that process.
In Badrinath (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the right to be "considered" for promotion is a fundamental right. It is not the mere "consideration" for promotion that is important. "Consideration" must be fair according to established principles governing service jurisprudence. If that right to be considered for promotion is taken away by adopting a procedure which is not recognized by the Statutes, it can be said that there has been absence of "consideration" of the right for being promoted which right has been recognized as a fundamental right. Similarly in B. Amrutha Lakshmi (supra), such right of being considered has been recognized though a candidate may not have a right to be promoted. Wrongful exclusion from the zone of consideration could also affect the right of a candidate to be considered for promotion.
::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 :::
WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 20 Common Judgment
14. The facts indicate that after the Executive Council passed its resolution on 07.01.2019 and the candidates were called upon to furnish further material to warrant consideration of their claim for promotion, the petitioners have immediately on 22.01.2019 made a representation seeking to raise an objection to the effect that the criteria as prescribed by the Statutes for considering the case of promotions had been altered in a manner contrary to the law. The representations dated 22.01.2019, 27.01.2019 and 28.02.2019 clearly indicate that such objections had been raised by the petitioners challenging the manner in which the promotions were sought to be effected. In any event, the petitioners having submitted their proposals for consideration before the Scrutiny and Assessment Committee before the last day which was 06.11.2017, they were justified in objecting to the change in procedure as adopted by the Selection Board thereafter. We therefore do not find much substance in the objection raised that the petitioners having participated in the process of promotion, they were now estopped from challenging the outcome of that process. This is for the reason that the claim of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2444 of 2019 and the petitioner no.1 in Writ Petition No.2806 of 2019 has not been considered by the Selection Board by restricting the zone of consideration to 1:2 instead of 1:5. It would have been a different matter if the petitioners would have raised an objection that the promotions were not liable to be made as per the provisions of ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 21 Common Judgment Statute 52/Statute 73. Then having participated in the selection process, they would have been estopped from turning around and making a grievance. However, when the challenge as raised is to the change in the procedure for promotion from the one prescribed by the Statutes and the same having been objected to, the objection as raised on the ground of estoppel does not warrant consideration. The decision in Ranjan Kumar & Others (supra) is thus distinguishable on facts.
15. Another objection raised is the absence of all promotees being impleaded as respondents in the writ petitions. According to the promoted respondents, since the entire process of promotion was being challenged by the petitioners, it was necessary for them to implead all the Assistant Professors who had been promoted as Associate Professors. In reply, it has been submitted by the petitioners that only those Assistant Professors who were less meritorious than the petitioners but had been promoted as Associate Professors were impleaded as respondents. The justification for the same is that if the procedure as prescribed by the Statutes is adopted, the concerned respondents being less meritorious than the petitioners, they were not liable to be promoted. The petitioners therefore have chosen to challenge the promotions of such promotees who were less meritorious than the petitioners.
::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 :::
WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 22 Common Judgment In the light of the specific challenge raised by the petitioners and as they are aggrieved by the adoption of a different procedure than the one prescribed by the Statutes which has resulted in less meritorious candidates being promoted, were are inclined to examine the challenge as raised on merits and we do not find it appropriate to non-suit the petitioners only on the ground that all promoted Associate Professors have not been impleaded as respondents. In any event, the petitioners have no grievance with the promotion of such Associate Professors who are more meritorious than them and hence in this backdrop, such more meritorious candidates are not found to be even proper parties. We are conscious of the position that promotions of such Assistant Professors who have been promoted but have not been impleaded cannot be challenged in their absence.
16. For the purposes of considering the challenges as raised on the ground that the promotions have been effected in a manner contrary to the procedure prescribed, it would first be necessary to consider certain relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeths) Act, 1983 (for short, 'the said Act'). As per the provisions of Section 31, the powers and duties of the Executive Council have been enumerated. Sub-clause (xvii) provides for making, amending and repealing the Statutes and Regulations. Section 33(1) of the said Act ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 23 Common Judgment indicates the role of the Academic Council and it is stated that the Academic Council would serve as an Advisory Body to the University. Under Section 34, the powers and duties of the Academic Council have been enumerated. Under Section 34(2)(ii), the Academic Council can make recommendations to the Executive Council in respect of various posts including the post of Associate Professor with regard to their qualifications and other conditions of service. By virtue of provisions of Section 37(g) of the said Act, the Statutes may provide for the qualifications, mode of recruitment and other conditions of service of Associate Professors. Thereafter, as per Section 38(2) of the said Act, the Executive Council is empowered to make, amend or repeal the Statutes from time to time in the manner provided thereafter. Under Section 38(4), every statute passed by the Executive Council has to be submitted to the Chancellor who may give or withhold his assent thereto. Section 38(5) specifies that no statute passed by the Executive Council shall be valid or shall come into force unless it is assented to by the Chancellor. Section 39 of the said Act relates to the Regulations and especially in regard to the procedure to be observed at the meetings of the Executive Council, Academic Council and the Faculties.
17. We then turn to the relevant Statutes of the University. Chapter-V of the Statutes pertains to various Officers, Heads of ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 24 Common Judgment Department, Professors and other equivalent posts in the University. As per Statute 40, Statute nos.41 to 54 with regard to recruitment, qualifications and procedure of the Selection Committee are applicable to the post of Director, Deans of Faculties, Associate Deans, Heads of Department, Professors and other equivalent posts. Statute 52 pertains to evaluation of the candidates and prescribes the manner in which the same has to be done. Thereafter Statute 71 classifies various members of the Academic Staff and the same includes Associate Professor. Statute 72 specifies that Statute 73 to 77 as regards qualifications and method of recruitment would be applicable to all posts of the Academic Staff. Statute 73 prescribes qualifications of Academic Staff members and refers to Appendix III. Statute 74(1) prescribes that the appointment of members of the Academic Staff be made strictly on merit. Statute 77(1)
(iv) specifies that appointments have to be made strictly as per the order of merit recommended by the Selection Committee. If the order of merit has to be deviated from, the Vice Chancellor has to record reasons and also obtain approval of the Executive Council. Sub-clause (2) thereof with its second proviso specifies that promotions would be made through the Selection Committee on the basis of merit and seniority in the concerned discipline.
18. By virtue of order dated 15.03.2014 that has been published ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 25 Common Judgment in the Gazette on 25.03.2014, the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeths) (First Amendment) Statutes, 2014 came into effect. Statute 41 as was existing came to be substituted. It was provided that posts to be filled in by promotion should be on the basis of merit and seniority in the concerned discipline or group of discipline. Under Statute 41 as it was earlier existing, the criteria for promotion was also on the basis of merit and seniority. Said Statute 41 was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.V. Mahadkar (supra) to mean that recommendations of the Selection Committee should be on the basis of merit and seniority. Statute 52 providing for evaluation was also amended. Selection was to be done on the basis of merit in the light of marks given to each candidate. As per Clause (A) thereof, the eligibility criteria for selection on the basis of API was provided. For purposes of effecting promotions, it was stated that average gradation of Annual Confidential Reports of preceding five years would be considered. Similarly eligibility for promotion would be considered according to the minimum score of API from Category I, II and III based on the norms depicted in Tables 1 to 3 of Appendix II of the Statute and as per minimum qualifications, service experience as depicted in Statutes 41 and
73. As regards the criteria for evaluation for selection of Academic Staff, the same has been provided by Clause (B). For the purposes of promotion, item (iii) states that the evaluation criteria was to be as per ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 26 Common Judgment minimum qualification, minimum service experience as per Statutes 41 and 73 as well as API score as per Tables 1 to 3 of Appendix II of the Statute.
19. As noted above, initially on 03.01.2019 the Academic Council passed Resolution No.10 of 2019. As per the said resolution, on the basis of report submitted by the Committee headed by the Director of Higher Education in the meeting held on 27.11.2018, the candidates were to be considered for promotion on the basis of seniority, acquisition of minimum educational qualifications as prescribed in Appendix-III of Statute 73. For the purposes of assessing their merit, the API score and Annual Confidential Reports were to be taken into consideration. Similarly, the ratio of candidates to be considered in the zone of consideration which was earlier 1:5 was altered to 1:2. If by applying that ratio of 1:2, no eligible candidate was available, the next candidate in terms of seniority was liable to be promoted till the period an eligible candidate was available. This resolution of the Academic Council was then put before the Executive Council which on 07.01.2019 accepted the same without any changes.
20. Perusal of these resolutions dated 03.01.2019 and 07.01.2019 indicates reference being made to the provisions of Statute 75 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 27 Common Judgment of the Statutes and it has been observed that Statute 75 permits amendments to be made in the Regulations. When the provisions of Statute 75 are seen, the same pertain to the constitution of the Selection Committee for selection to the post of Associate Professor, Assistant Professor and other equivalent posts. Statute 75(7) permits the Executive Council to make Rules consistent with the said Act and the Statutes. For sake of convenience the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"75(7) : The Executive Council shall make rules consistent with the Act and Statutes providing for giving notice to the members of the Selection Committee and of the business to be considered at meetings and for keeping record of the proceedings of the meetings and assessment of candidates. "
The aforesaid provision indicates that the Executive Council is empowered to make Rules that should be consistent with the provisions of the said Act and the Statutes providing for giving notice to the members of the Selection Committee and all the business to be considered at such meetings as well as for keeping record of the proceedings. There is thus a limited scope available for the Executive Council under Statute 75(7) which exercise again has to be consistent with the provisions of the said Act and the Statutes. On a plain reading of the said provision, there does not appear to be any authority with the Executive Council to prescribe for matters that are otherwise prescribed ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 28 Common Judgment by the Statutes/Regulations. Though the provisions of Section 38(2) of the said Act empower the Executive Council to make Statutes or amend or repeal Statutes, the same has to be done in the manner prescribed by Section 38 of the said Act itself. Section 38(4) of the said Act requires every Statute passed by the Executive Council to be submitted to the Chancellor who may thereafter give or withhold his assent thereto or refer it back to the Executive Council for re-consideration. Notably, Section 38(5) of the said Act stipulates that no Statute passed by the Executive Council would be valid nor would it come into force until assented to by the Chancellor. It is undisputed that the procedure as prescribed by Section 38 has not been followed pursuant to the passing of Resolution No.26 of 2019 by the Executive Council on 07.01.2019.
21. Though the resolution dated 07.01.2019 passed by the Executive Council refers to Statute 75 by stating that amendment in the Regulations can be made by the Executive Council, when the entire resolution is considered it becomes obvious that it travels beyond the scope of Statute 75(7) in view of the fact that the eligibility/evaluation of candidates stands modified from the requirement as prescribed by the Statutes. It is thus found that by passing resolution dated 07.01.2019, the Executive Council though it purported to act under Statute 75(7) by stating that the Regulations were being modified, in effect matters ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 29 Common Judgment provided by Statute 52 and 73 stand modified by virtue of said resolution. In absence of there being any compliance with the requirements of Section 38 of the said Act, the said resolution is found to be contrary to the provisions of Section 38 of the said Act as well as Statute 75(7) thereof. Resolution dated 07.01.2019 therefore could not have been taken into consideration by the Selection Board while recommending the promotions in question. In any event, it is also seen that in the meeting of the Executive Committee held on 22.07.2019, the minutes of the meeting dated 07.01.2019 have not been confirmed.
22. Another reason to find fault with the procedure adopted by the Selection Board is the change in criteria during the process of promotion. It is seen from the record that for filling in the vacancies that were existing in October-2017, the University invited proposals from Assistant Professors in the matter of grant of promotion to the post of Associate Professors. Such proposals were to be submitted by 31.10.2017 which date was then extended to 06.11.2017. In other words, the vacancies as existing in November-2017 were sought to be filled in and therefore the procedure as prevailing on that date ought to have been adopted for effecting the promotions. The candidates were called upon thereafter on 18.01.2018 to submit further documents to establish their eligibility and such documents were to be submitted by 20.01.2018. It is ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 30 Common Judgment when this process was in progress that the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of powers conferred on him proceeded to grant ad-hoc promotions for a limited period. When the Scrutiny and Assessment Committee was seized of the proposals submitted by various Assistant Professors, the Academic Council on 03.01.2019 and thereafter the Executive Council on 07.01.2019 passed resolutions that had the effect of modifying the yardsticks prescribed as regards the eligibility and evaluation in the matter of making promotions. When the proposals were called by 06.11.2017, the zone of consideration that was prevailing was in the ratio of 1:5 which was then modified on 03.01.2019/07.01.2019 to 1:2. The said resolutions also indicate a deviation in the modality of considering the merit and seniority of candidates.
23. The fact that the University through its Selection Committee had restricted the zone of consideration from 1:5 as existing pursuant to the resolution of the Executive Council dated 12.06.2015 to 1:2 as per resolution dated 07.01.2019 is admitted by it in paragraph 2 of its rejoinder filed in Writ Petition No.2471 of 2019 as well as in paragraphs 1 and 4 of its rejoinder in Writ Petition No.2444 of 2019.
The effect of restricting the zone of consideration from the one prevailing on the date of the vacancies is also evident. In the subject of Agricultural Botany, six posts were vacant for being filled in through ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 31 Common Judgment promotion. As per the zone of consideration existing in November-2017, the candidates in the ratio of 1:5 were to be considered. The Selection Committee considered the eligibility of sixteen candidates in the ratio of 1:2. Out of the sixteen candidates only six were found eligible and all the six eligible candidates were promoted. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.2444 of 2019 was placed at Serial No.27 in the seniority list of Assistant Professors in the subject of Agricultural Botany. The candidature of the petitioner could have been considered if the zone of consideration in the ratio of 1:5 would have been applied.
Similarly, for the subject of Agricultural Economics, three vacant posts were to be filled in by way of promotion. By applying the ratio of 1:2, the candidature of six candidates was considered. Five candidates were found eligible out of whom three candidates were promoted. The petitioner no.1 in Writ Petition No.2806 of 2019 who was at Serial No.7 in the seniority list was liable to be considered for promotion if the zone of consideration in the ratio of 1:5 was to be applied. Her candidature was however excluded by restricting the zone of consideration to 1:2.
As held in B.Amrutha Lakshmi (supra), on entering the zone of consideration an eligible candidate cannot be told that being junior in seniority, his proposal for promotion would not be considered. This would amount to discrimination.
::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 :::
WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 32 Common Judgment
24. The aforesaid thus indicates that in the midst of the process of promotion, the criteria that was prevailing on the date when the vacancies were proposed to be filled was changed. It is a settled position of law that when the process of filling in vacancies has commenced, the procedure as prescribed when the vacancies were sought to be filled in ought to be adopted and followed for filling those vacancies. The procedure cannot be altered midway after the process of consideration of eligible candidates for promotion has commenced. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Sharma & Another Versus State of Rajasthan & Others [(2008) 3 SCC 724] as well as the judgment of the Division Bench in Sudhir Sharadrao Hunge & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others [2010 (4) Mh.L.J. 572]. Similarly, in V.V. Rangaiah & Others (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that vacancies that have occurred prior to the amended Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules. Thus, the petitioners had a right for being considered to be promoted to the post of Associate Professor on the last date of submission of proposals which was 06.11.2017. The zone of consideration then prevailing was in the ratio of 1:5 and if the aforesaid ratio was to be followed the proposals of the petitioners were liable to be considered for promotion. By adopting the ratio of ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 33 Common Judgment 1:2 pursuant to the resolution dated 07.01.2019, the proposals of the petitioners except petitioner no.2 in Writ Petition No. 2806/2019 were excluded from consideration by changing the criteria that was prevailing when the vacancies arose. Non-consideration of the proposals of the petitioners as a result of altering the zone of consideration has definitely caused prejudice to the rights of the petitioners which right was limited to the consideration of their proposals for promotion. That the Selection Board proceeded to determine the candidature of eligible Assistant Professors as per the provisions as modified/amended after November-2017 is evident from the minutes of the said Board. This is another reason to hold that by modifying the rules of the game midway after the game has commenced has resulted in vitiating the final outcome in the form of promotions given to the concerned respondents.
25. We also find substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that in Madan Nanaji Jadhav (supra), the University had taken a stand that for the purposes of promotion to the post of Assistant Professor, the comparative merit of the candidates was relevant and the promotions made thereunder were sought to be defended on that basis. It be noted that comparative merit has been prescribed by Statute 41 by recognizing the aspect of merit and seniority. The course as adopted by ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 34 Common Judgment the Selection Board is not found to be in consonance with the procedure prescribed.
26. With a view to indicate the procedure that was prevailing when the vacancies arose which were sought to be filled in on 06.11.2017 and the actual criteria applied by the University while making the promotions, a comparison of aforesaid two modes would make the position clear.
Requirement of Statutes Criteria applied by the Selection Committee Statute 41 in its proviso to Clause As per the resolution dated (3) provides that the posts have to 07.01.2019 passed by the Executive be filled in by promotion on the Council, the aspects of seniority, recommendation of the minimum educational qualification Recruitment Board on the basis of as per Appendix-III to Statute 73, merit and seniority in the discipline API score and Annual Confidential or ground of disciplines. Reports were to be taken into consideration. The Annexure that was supplied to each interested Assistant Professor for being filled in as per the proposal given indicates that the minimum score as stipulated in the API as 300 was taken into consideration.
::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 :::
WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 35 Common Judgment
Statute 52 prescribes the
manner of evaluation. It is
divided into two heads. Clause A
prescribes the eligibility for
selection on the basis of
Academic Performance Indicator
(API). In the matter of
promotion, average gradation of
Annual Confidential Reports for
preceding five years have to be
taken into consideration.
Similarly, for being eligible to be
considered for promotion, the
minimum score of API from
Category I, II and III based on the
norms depicted in Table 1, 2 and 3
of Appendix-II of the Statutes and
as per the minimum qualifications,
service experience as indicated in
Statutes 41 and 73 is relevant.
Under Clause B, the criteria of
evaluation insofar as promotion is
concerned, it would be as per the
minimum qualification, minimum
service experience as per Statutes
41 and 73 and API score as per
Table 1 to 3 of Appendix-II of the
Statute.
::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 :::
WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 36 Common Judgment
From the marks allotted by the Selection Committee to each candidate, it can be seen that the proposals of various Assistant Professors have been examined in the light of the requirements prescribed by the resolution dated 07.01.2019 which as noted above makes a departure from the requirements as prescribed by Statutes 52 and 73. This has resulted in the proposal of the petitioner no.2 in Writ Petition No. 2806/2019 being considered as per the resolution dated 07.01.2019. At the cost of repetition, the modifications laid down in resolution dated 07.01.2019 have not been affirmed in the manner prescribed by Section 38 of the said Act.
27. We may however clarify that we do not intend to examine the respective merits of the petitioners in comparison to the promoted respondents. That would not be our province. But having found that the Selection Board/University has proceeded to grant promotions on the posts of Associate Professor firstly by modifying the criteria that was prevailing when the vacancies were in existence as well as on the last date of submission of proposals, the promotions as made stand vitiated. Similarly, as the resolution dated 07.01.2019 passed by the Executive Council has the effect of amending the relevant Statutes especially Statutes 52 and 73 but which exercise has been done without complying with the procedure prescribed by Section 38 of the said Act, the criteria ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 37 Common Judgment adopted by the Selection Board based on that resolution is also faulty. On these grounds therefore the promotions given to the concerned respondents cannot be supported. As held in Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Another (supra), an erroneous order of promotion which is contrary to the Rules creates no right in the promotee. Perusal of the respective promotion orders indicate that said promotions have been made on temporary basis though they are stated to have been made in accordance with the provisions of the Statute and consequent amendments. It is also stipulated therein that if any incumbent is wrongly superceded, the promotee would be reverted to his original post. The challenge to the orders of promotion qua the promoted respondents will therefore have to be upheld.
28. Since it has been found that the manner in which the concerned respondents have been promoted to the post of Associate Professor is not in accordance with law, we have no hesitation in setting aside the orders of promotion as issued to the respondent nos.2 to 5 in Writ Petition No.2444 of 2019 in the subject of Agricultural Botany, respondent nos.4 to 10 in Writ Petition No.2471 of 2019 in the subject of Agronomy and respondent nos.2 and 3 in Writ Petition No.2806 of 2019 in the subject of Agricultural Economics. The Selection Committee is free to consider the proposals as received by 06.11.2017 by applying the ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 ::: WPs 2444, 2471 & 2806/19 38 Common Judgment criteria that was prevailing on the said date for effecting promotions to the post of Associate Professor. As regards other Associate Professors who have been promoted but who have not been impleaded in these writ petitions, the matter is left to the wisdom of the University to take appropriate steps in accordance with law if so advised. It is clarified that we have not examined the legality of the promotions of such Associate Professors who are not parties in these writ petitions. It is also declared that Resolution No.26 of 2019 passed by the Executive Council dated 07.01.2019 to the extent it has the effect of modifying the criteria prescribed in the matter of effecting promotions which is in variance with Statutes 52 and 73 would not operate till the procedure as contemplated by Section 38 of the said Act is complied with. Rule in each writ petition is made absolute in aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(VINAY JOSHI, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) APTE
At this stage, Shri S.S. Khedkar, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 in Writ Petition No.2471 of 2019 prays that the effect of the judgment be stayed for a period of four weeks. This request is opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
In the facts of the case, the judgment shall come into operation after expiry of period of four weeks.
(VINAY JOSHI, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
APTE
::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2020 11:27:40 :::