VEENA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner no.13 does not wish to proceed with the claim raised in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition at the instance of the said petitioner stands dismissed.

(2.) The writ petition is pressed by the remaining 12 petitioners. These 12 petitioners, however, are not similarly placed. Although all the 12 petitioners claim to have been appointed as Assistant Professors in different disciplines by Smt. Rajshree Mulak College of Engineering for Women (hereafter "the College", for short) on diverse dates, there is a clear line of demarcation that divides them into two distinct and identifiable groups. One group comprises of the petitioners 1 to 8, whereas the other comprises of the petitioners 9 to 12. The division is created by the fact that while appointments of the petitioners 1 to 8 were preceded by approval of recommendations made by the College for such appointments by the Vice-Chancellor of Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University (hereafter "the University", for short), the petitioners 9 to 12 were appointed without any approval granted by the University. In such view of the matter, these 4 petitioners who are differently placed could not have joined in this writ petition with the petitioners 1 to 8. This joint writ petition, thus, suffers a technical defect. However, we do not propose to be bound by such technicality and proceed to decide the contentions raised on behalf of the two groups of petitioners on their own merit.

(3.) The Government of Maharashtra in the Higher and Technical Education Department issued a Circular dtd. 12/8/2009 (hereafter "the said circular", for short) on the subject of revision of pay scale of teachers and equivalent cadres in higher education as per U.G.C. Scheme (6th Pay Commission). The said circular provided for revision of pay scales of different categories of teachers in Universities and Colleges governed by enactments of the State legislature. It is not in dispute that the College is affiliated to the University and despite being a private unaided institution, was bound by the terms of the said circular. The question we are called upon to decide is, whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of revision of pay scales as ordained by the said circular.