ANIL D. GARJE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(2.) It is the case of the Petitioner that, in the year 1993 the petitioner completed his education of M.Sc. in Physics subject. Thus, the Petitioner was eligible and qualifed for being appointed to the post of Lecturer in Polytechnic college. On 07.05.1994 the Petitioner was appointed to the post of Lecturer of Physics subject at Sou. Venutai Chavan Polytechnic College run and managed by Sinhagad Technical Education Society, Pune, in the pay scale of 2200-75-3700. On 04.08.1997 the appointment of the Petitioner has been approved for the post of Lecturer in Physics, in Sou. Venutai Chavan Polytechnic College. On 13.02.2001, the petitioner was awarded with M.Phil in Physics with 'A' Grade by the University of Pune. The Petitioner was also awarded with Ph.D in Physics by University of Pune on 27.05.2008. From 1st July, 1995 till 30th November, 2009 for more than 14 years, the Petitioner was in continuous service with Sou. Venutai Chavan Polytechnic College as Lecturer in Physics.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, Respondent No. 2 ought to have considered that the petitioner fulflls all the criteria prescribed in Government Resolution dated 27 th February 1994 as well as said Regulations of 2010 for considering his previous service of 14 years as Lecturer in Physics with Sou. Venutai Chavan Polytechnic. Respondent No. 2 has failed to give reasons for not considering the Petitioner's previous service for giving him benefts under Career Advancement Scheme. Respondent No. 2 just quoted provisions of Government Resolution dated 27 th February 1994, however, he failed to explain that which criteria of the Government Resolution, petitioner does not fulfll. The Respondent No. 2 also failed to see and consider that by following proper procedure the petitioner was appointed at Sou. Venutai Chavan Polytechnic college at Pune as Lecturer in Physics. At the time of his appointment at Sou. Venutai Chavan Polytechnic college he possessed requisite qualifcation as Lecturer. As also, from the year 1994 to the year 2009 petitioner was in continuous service with the said college. Therefore, Respondent No. 2 ought to have considered the Petitioner's previous continuous service of 15 years for giving him benefts under Career Advancement Scheme. It is submitted that Respondent No. 2 failed to see and consider that the petitioner was appointed on the pay scale of 2200-75-3700 which was equivalent to pay scale of Lecturer as prescribed by UGC for the post of lecturer. The qualifcation for being appointed to the post of Lecturer in Polytechnic College was not lower than qualifcation for being appointed to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in a College affliated to the University.