Bombay High Court
Ramesh Diwakarrao Moon vs Maharashtra Public Service ... on 2 May, 2022
Author: Sunil B. Shukre
Bench: Sunil B. Shukre, M.S. Jawalkar
9 wp 7734-2019.odt
1/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.7734 OF 2019
Ramesh Diwakarrao Moon,
Age 43 years, Occ. Service,
Indian inhabitant, Resident at,
403/C-17, Raunak City,
Adharwadi Jail Road,
Wadeghar Kalyan (W), Dist. Thane.
... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. Maharashtra Public Service Commission,
through its Secretary, having its office at
Bank of India bldg., 3rd Floor, M.G. Road,
Fort, Mumbai.
2. Deputy Secretary, having its office at
Bank of India Bldg., 3rd Floor,
M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai.
3. State of Maharashtra through Higher
and Technical Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
4. Pravin Pundlikram Karde
Aged about major.
Occ. Service, R/o. Karde Bhavan,
Baccharaj Plot, Near Dhabebai Hospital,
Cotton Market Road, Amravati
...RESPONDENTS
9 wp 7734-2019.odt
2/12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri V.N. More, Advocate for Petitioner
Shri N.S. Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Shri A.P. Kalmegh, Advocate for respondent No. 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 2nd May, 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. Here is a case of the petitioner, an unfortunate one, who fell short of experience criteria by only a few months in order to be eligible for applying for the post of Head of Department in Government Polytechnic Colleges in response to the advertisement Nos. 63 and 68 of 2013.
3. The petitioner was desirous of applying to the post of Head of Department of Government Polytechnic Colleges in the department of Electronics. While the 9 wp 7734-2019.odt 3/12 petitioner fulfilled the criteria of educational qualification, in the sense that, he possessed bachelor's and master's degree in electronics with first class or equivalent either at bachelor's or master's level, the petitioner fell short of 10 years of relevant experience in teaching/research and industry.
4. The petitioner had earlier approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for his being declared as being eligible to take part in the selection process initiated by the M.P.S.C. in pursuance of advertisement Nos.63, 68 of 2013 and his original application was rejected by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by it's order dated 10/03/2017. The petitioner then questioned the legality and correctness of this order by filing a Writ Petition No. 292/2018.
5. Upon hearing the petitioner and the respondents and considering the impugned order, this Court found that the experience of a candidate was to be 9 wp 7734-2019.odt 4/12 calculated in a composite manner by taking into account, not only his teaching experience but also his experience in the field of research and also industry, if any, and in this case the petitioner had a teaching experience and also industrial experience. Since, these factors were not considered appropriately by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, this Court by its judgment delivered on 21/06/2019 quashed and set aside the order dated 10/03/2017 passed by the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for its fresh consideration and decision, in accordance with law.
6. Thereafter, the issue was reconsidered and decided afresh by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 24/09/2019. Once again, the result of the second round of litigation before the Tribunal went against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court by filing this petition.
9 wp 7734-2019.odt 5/12
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that again Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has committed the same mistake. While reconsidering the whole issue, the Tribunal only considered teaching experience of the petitioner and did not consider, in any manner, the industrial experience of the petitioner and held that since the petitioner did not have requisite 10 years' teaching experience as per the advertisement, the petitioner was rightly held by the M.P.S.C. not eligible for the post in question. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this judgment is perverse as it does not consider the relevant parameters of experience and, therefore, this must be quashed and set aside. Learned Counsel also submits that the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal as the petitioner is very much hopeful of convincing the Tribunal about his fulfilling the experience criteria. Shri Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, disagrees. He submits that even now it is clear that the petitioner has not possessed the requisite experience and, 9 wp 7734-2019.odt 6/12 therefore, it would be a futile exercise to again remand the matter back to M.A.T. Nagpur.
8. On going through the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, we find that the learned Counsel for the petitioner is right, to the extent of his argument that the Tribunal has only considered the teaching experience of the petitioner and has not considered, in any manner, the industrial experience of the petitioner. The Tribunal has held that the petitioner does not possess requisite 10 years' of teaching experience as per the advertisement. In fact, the petitioner also does not claim that he possesses complete 10 years' of teaching experience as required under the advertisement. His contention is that he is possessing teaching experience of 9 years 9 months and 12 days. But, his further contention is that the shortfall in the 10 years' experience is filled up by the petitioner's industrial experience of more than four years, and for this purpose, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed his reliance upon certificate of experience dated 19/08/2017 9 wp 7734-2019.odt 7/12 issued by Chief Engineer (Technical) of Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited, Mumbai (page No.37).
9. On going through the certificate dated 19/08/2017, one can very well see that the petitioner has served in the industry in the different capacities such as Junior Engineer for the period from 20/07/2006 to 12/01/2010 and as Assistant Engineer from 13/01/2010 to 18/11/2010. This certificate also states that the petitioner has worked on the establishment of Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited with active participation in designing planning, executing, analysing and purchasing power generation plant equipment. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this certificate fulfills the experience criteria more than required as per the advertisement insofar as case of the petitioner is concerned. He also submits that the experience criteria has to be taken in a composite manner for teaching and research and industry.
9 wp 7734-2019.odt 8/12
10. In order to examine the correctness of the certificate of experience relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also his arguments, it would be necessary for us to consider the condition prescribed about experience criteria. This condition is to be found in clause 4.3 of the advertisement in question. For the sake of convenience it along with its notes, is reproduced as follows:
4-3 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk o vuqHko %&
(A) [i] Bachelor's and Master's degree of
appropriate branch in Engineering/Technology with First Class or equivalent either at Bachelor's or Master's level.
[ii] Minimum of 10 years relevant experience in teaching/research/industry.
OR (B) [i] Bachelor's degree and Master's degree of appropriate branch in Engineering/Technology with First Class or equivalent either at Bachelor's or Master's level And Ph.D. or equivalent in appropriate discipline in Engineering/Technology.
[ii] Minimum of 5 years relevant experience in teaching/research/industry.
Note
9 wp 7734-2019.odt
9/12
a. Equivalence of Ph.D. is based on
publication of 5 international journal papers, each journal having a cumulative impact index of not less than 2.0 with incumbent as the main Author and all 5 publications being in the authors area of specialization.
b. In case of research experience, good
academic record and books/research paper
publications/IPR/patents record shall be required as deemed fit by the expert members of the Selection Committee.
c. If the experience in industry is considered, the same shall be at managerial level equivalent to head of the department with active participation record in designing, 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 Committee.
[d] For the post of Head of department flair for management and leadership is essential as deemed fit by the expert members of the Selection Committee. 'kklu fu.kZ; dzekad lafd.kZ & 2013 & ¼45@13½ rka-f'k&2] fnukad 6 es] 2013 ¼9 tqyS] 2013½ jksth izfl/n uqlkj led{k vgZrk vkf.k 'kklukus lanfHkZr fnukad 26@7@2013 jksthP;k i=k}kjs dGfoY;kuqlkj 9 wp 7734-2019.odt 10/12 ^esfMdy bysDVªkWfuDl* P;k fo"k;klanHkkZrhy led{k vgZrk fopkjkr ?ks.;kr ;srhy-
11. For the purposes of this petition, the condition No.4.3 A (ii) read with note (c) is relevant. It states that a candidate must possess minimum 10 years of relevant experience in teaching/research/Industry. Note (c) clarifies the nature of industrial experience. It states that if the experience in industry is to be considered, such experience must be at a managerial level which is equivalent to Head of Department. It further states that the managerial experience should not only be equivalent to that of the post of Head of Department but it should also be with active participation in regard to designing, planning, executing, analysing, maintaining quality control, innovation, training and also in publication of technical books and/or research papers and/or obtaining of proprietary rights and patents and so on and so forth. So, the first requisite of industrial experience is of experience at managerial level which is equivalent to the level of the Head of the Department. The second requisite of 9 wp 7734-2019.odt 11/12 industrial experience is with regard to active participation in designing, planning executing, analyzing, maintaining quality control, innovation, training and publication of technical books/research papers etc.
12. Now, in the light of the experience required as per clause 4.3 A (ii) read with note (c), if we examine the experience certificate dated 19/08/2017 (page 57), we would find that the industrial experience which the petitioner possessed was only in the capacity of Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer. The post of Engineer is an entry level post and the post of Assistant Engineer is an intermediate post and both these posts cannot be considered to be equivalent to the post of the Head of the Department. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the salary of the Junior Engineer is equivalent to the post of Junior Engineer and the pay scale of Assistant Engineer may be equivalent to the pay scale of a Head of the Department. If pay scale is one of the criteria for considering equivalence, the functions discharged by an incumbent of a particular 9 wp 7734-2019.odt 12/12 post also form another criteria for considering the equivalence. It is nobody's case that functions discharged by Junior Engineer or Assistant Engineer are equivalent to the functions discharged by Head of the Department in Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited. That being the case, we do not think, and as rightly submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, that any fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration and fresh decision, in accordance with law. The position of the petitioner as being not eligible for applying to the post of the Head of the Department in Government Polytechnic Colleges in Electronics Department is very much clear even at this stage. We, therefore, find no merit in the petition. The petition stands dismissed.
Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, J.) (Sunil B. Shukre, J.) Signed By:JAYASHREE SHARAD SHINGNE Jayashree..
Signing Date:04.05.2022 13:11