Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Before proceeding further to consider the challenge on merits, I find it appropriate to look into the view of Division bench of this Court in Sudhir S/o Sharadrao Hunge vs. State of Maharashtra (supra). Its perusal reveals the undisputed position there that all petitioners were holding the prescribed necessary qualification viz. M. Phil. & their recruitment was after the approval to the relevant advertisements by University as also in pursuance thereof. There was no dispute that till 11/7/2009, the NET/ SLET qualification was not necessary & M. Phil. was also a recognised qualification. The Division bench found that NET /SLET became compulsory for the first time on 11/7/2009 when UGC issued gazette notification and hence, it was prospective in operation ie. it did not prejudice selections made on the strength of advertisements approved by University before said date. Thus, there was no dispute about M. Phil. being a recognized minimum qualification in force prior to 11/7/2009 and valid open selections as per law after public advertisements in which all M. Phil. holders got due opportunity to compete.

prior to their selections. The view in Sudhir S/o Sharadrao Hunge vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) therefore is not relevant in so far as termination of present petitioners is concerned.

5. Petitioner in WP 10991/2010 has produced a statement of mark which does not bear any date & mentions that he appeared for April, 2007 examination. It carries a seal/stamp that he passed viva voce on 29/9/2008. Thus before September, 2008 he had not cleared M. Phil. In paragraph 16 of his petition, he claims that he passed M. Phil in April,2009. Other petitioner has produced a provisional certificate which shows his registration number 066160441 dated 8/4/2009 and certifies that he passed M. Phil (botany) examination held in April 2009. He also claims in paragraph 16 of his petition that he passed M. Phil in April,2009. Both claim that as NET became compulsory prospectively from 11/7/2009, as they had M. Phil prior to 11/7/2009, they were eligible. The contention is misconceived as they acquire said qualification after their termination & hence, their selections earlier by the respondent management was not due to that M. Phil. Exemption or relaxation given to them is for procuring NET and not M. Phil. Their M. Phil in 2009 is not relevant or contemplated in advertisements in response to which they last joined the services.