Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. It is the case of the petitioners that, as far as the Amendment Statutes of 2014 are concerned, one of the qualifications, which is prescribed as an essential qualification is the one of NET/Ph.D. That is to say, the qualification of NET/Ph.D. is made compulsory by the Amendment Statutes of 2014 meaning that, unless & until the said qualification is acquired, the concerned person does not become eligible for the promotional post. While on the one hand the Amendment Statutes of 2014 have made acquisition of NET/Ph.D. a condition precedent for getting promotion to higher cadre amongst other revised conditions, however while doing so neither the State Government/Respondent No. 2 nor the University/Respondent No. 1 has kept it in mind that, 6591.2014 WP with group1.odt for the in-service candidates like present petitioners, the acquisition of Ph.D. qualification is not a matter of course or routine and in fact, it has to be done only & only after securing No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the University. It is the case of the petitioners that, further, as far as the Marathwada Agricultural University represented by the Respondent No. 1 is concerned, it is of common knowledge that, since last number of years the persons like present petitioners have been finding it difficult to get requisite NOC from the University for undergoing Ph.D. Not only that, but at times, the University had even refused permission to some of the petitioners and persons like them for acquiring the Ph.D. qualification. Apart therefrom, it had introduced such criteria (including the one of upper age limit of 50 years), which prevented willing candidates from applying for Ph.D. Registration. It was as a result of said action on the part of the Respondent No. 1/University that, even the "Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth Karmchari Sangh"

53. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, the petitioners have received increments is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent - University during the course of his arguments has stated that, the said increments have been wrongly granted by the Ministerial staff and appropriate action has been initiated against those, who are responsible to grant the increments to the petitioners. Another contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, the qualification of NET/Ph.D. is made compulsory by the Amendment Statutes of 2014 meaning that, unless & until the said qualification is acquired the concerned person does not become eligible for the promotional post. While on the one hand the Amendment Statutes of 2014 have made 6591.2014 WP with group1.odt acquisition of NET/Ph.D. a condition precedent for getting promotion to higher cadre amongst other revised conditions, however while doing so neither the State Government/Respondent No. 2 nor the University/Respondent No. 1 has kept it in mind that, for the in-service candidates like present petitioners the acquisition of Ph.D. is not a matter of course or routine and in fact it has to be done only & only after securing No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the University. In this respect, again the matter would be between the State Government, University and the petitioners and if the petitioners are advised, they can file the representation with the University and the State Government for providing the facility for acquisition of the NET/Ph.D. qualification and if such representation is made by the petitioners, certainly the University and the State Government will take care of the petitioners' representation. We are also not impressed by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, action of the Respondents is of mass cancellation of 6591.2014 WP with group1.odt promotions and under the relevant Statutes at the relevant time, the petitioners were fully qualified and such mass cancellation of promotions was not contemplated. The petitioners were made aware by the respondents by issuing 11 months orders that their appointment is on adhoc basis on the promotional posts for 11 months. So far contention of the petitioners that, orders of petitioners' reversions are going to visit them with civil consequences and/or financial loss is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 - University, during the course of his arguments submitted that, the petitioners working on higher posts were paid salary of the higher posts and there will be no recovery made as regards to the salary, as the petitioners have already discharged their duties on higher posts. In case the petitioners have further grievance about financial loss/civil consequences suffered by them on account of their reversion from promotional post to the original post, the petitioners are free to make representations to the Respondent - University, and in 6591.2014 WP with group1.odt case such representation is filed, the Respondent -