Bombay High Court
Dr. Anil Kumar Rampal Dubey vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 3 September, 2018
Author: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari, M.G. Giratkar
wp1587.18 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1587 OF 2018
Dr. Anil Kumar Rampal Dubey,
aged 57 years, occupation -Service,
r/o 60, Laxmi Nagar, Wardha
442 001. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Principal Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 32.
2. The Director of Higher Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. Joint Director of Higher Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
4. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur through
its Registrar, Nagpur.
5. Yeshwant Mahavidyalaya, Wardha
through its Principal, Wardha. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri S.O. Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 4.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
M.G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
SEPTEMBER 03, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2018 01:07:58 :::
wp1587.18 2
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri S.O. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.
2. The petitioner claims benefit of Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) as per Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013. The same is denied to him because he is appointed on 07.01.1993 i.e. between 24.10.1992 to 03.04.2000.
3. On these admitted facts, the contention of Shri Ahmed, learned counsel is, advertisement in response to which the petitioner is selected was issued on 13.08.1992 and last date for submitting the application was 31.08.1992. He points out that period between 24.10.1992 and 03.04.2000 and its relevance can be seen from the judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2082 of 2013 and other connected matters on 23.12.2015. He points out that the appointments made between 19.09.1991 to 23.10.1992 are saved and ::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2018 01:07:58 ::: wp1587.18 3 excluded from above period in said judgment only. He relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sudhir s/o Sharadrao Hunge & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported at 2010 (4) Mh. L.J. 572, to urge that in such situation it is the date on which advertisement came to be published and qualifications or service conditions prevailing on that date which assume importance. He submits that as advertisement was approved by the University between 19.01.1991 and 23.10.1992 and advertisement is also published between this period, the petitioner must be deemed to be appointed between this period and, therefore, entitled to benefit of CAS.
4. The learned AGP relies upon operative part (1) of the judgment dated 23.12.2015 supra and submits that in present matter the petitioner has been appointed by order dated 07.01.1993 and hence his case is covered thereunder. She submits that as declared by the Division Bench at Bombay on 23.12.2015, the petitioner was rightly held not entitled to CAS.
::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2018 01:07:58 ::: wp1587.18 4
5. Shri Patil, learned counsel appearing for the University does not dispute relevant dates. While answering to a question, he fairly submitted that the University has approved appointment of the petitioner because of reported judgment in the case of Sudhir s/o Sharadrao Hunge & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (supra). This reported judgment shows that the insertion of compulsory NET/SLET qualification by Gazette notification dated 11.07.2009 is held prospective in operation and the Division Bench has found that when the date of advertisement was prior to 11.07.2009 and on that date M.Phil. was the requisite qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission (UGC), the selection and appointment made pursuant to said advertisement published prior to 11.07.2009 were not affected.
6. In present case, admittedly advertisement has been published on 13.08.1992 and the applications in response thereto were to be submitted by 31.08.1992. The petitioner has been selected on 27.11.1992 and actual appointment order is issued to him on 07.01.1993. The respondents do not claim that the petitioner does not satisfy eligibility norms. ::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2018 01:07:58 ::: wp1587.18 5
7. A perusal of the approval order dated 05.01.1993 reveals that it is in furtherance of appointment and proposal submitted by his employer on 24.11.1992 and in column while mentioning nature of approval granted, Nagpur University has mentioned that it is onwards from 1992-93.
8. If operative clause (1) of the judgment delivered on 23.12.2015 at Bombay is to be applied to these facts, it is apparent that selection and appointment of the petitioner could not have been approved. The said clause (1) in the operative order reads as under :
"(1) It is declared that the teachers/professors/ lecturers/ candidates who have not acquired NET/SET/TEST qualification and who are appointed during 24.10.1992 to 3.4.2000 (except 19.9.1991 to 23.10.1992) (see Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013) are not entitled for CAS (Career Advancement Scheme) and other related benefits except the benefits including the pay scale and increments and other related benefits, as announced by the State, but on conditions so reproduced."
9. This operative part, therefore, shows that the ::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2018 01:07:58 ::: wp1587.18 6 appointments between 19.09.1991 and 23.10.1992 are protected and those appointees are not subjected to requirement of any NET/SET/TEST. Thus, the petitioner though technically appointed after 23.10.1992, has been approved and, therefore, already extended necessary protection. The Division Bench judgment at Nagpur in the case of Sudhir s/o Sharadrao Hunge & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (supra) is in consonance with this position.
10. We, therefore, find that denial of CAS benefit to the petitioner is unjustified. Accordingly, we make rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2018 01:07:58 :::