VISHWAPRAKASH LAXMAN SIRSATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as in the connected group of petitions, which have raised a common challenge to the Resolution of the Government of Maharashtra, issued on 18th October, 2001 and more particularly Clause 2 (E) of the said Resolution. The said clause reads as under :

(2.) BY the above Resolution, the State Government has laid down that the Lecturers, who were appointed between the period from 19th September, 1991 to 11th December, 1999, and without possessing the qualifications of NET/set, would be protected and they are required to obtain the said qualifications by December, 2003 or before and in case they failed to acquire these requisite qualifications, within the said period, they would be entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 till their superannuation. In addition, they shall not be entitled for promotion, senior grade or selection grade. Those who passed the NET/set examination, within the stipulated extended period, would be entitled for senior. Selection grad from that date and their seniority will be also counted accordingly. Such of those Lecturers, who were employed under the Government Colleges, their continuation would be in consultation with the Maharashtra State Public Service Commission. However, it is stipulated in the said Government Resolution that those Lecturers who did not possess the NET/set qualifications and have been appointed after 11th December, 1999 shall not be given the benefit of extended period to acquire the said qualifications and their services are required to be discontinued before the completion of the probationary period. The petitioners are aggrieved by this clause of termination of service while on probation.

(3.) IT is submitted that the said clause is discriminatory and, thus, violating the guarantee provided under Article 14 of the Constitution. The cut off date viz. 11th December, 1999 is unreasonably fixed and it has no nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved and, therefore, the decision of the cut off date is arbitrary. The principles of equality between similarly placed Lecturers viz. all those who have not acquired NET/set qualifications has been breached. In any case, the Resolution dated 18th October, 2001 could be made operative prospectively after 18th October, 2001 and it cannot be made applicable to all the Lecturers who have been appointed prior to 18th October, 2001. By referring to the earlier Government Resolution dated 13th June, 2000 it has been submitted that while adopting the Regulations framed by the University Grants Commission (the Commission, for short) vide notification dated 4th April, 2000 the State Government did not lay down such a clause classifying the similarly placed Lecturers in different categories. In para 7 of the said Resolution it was stated that the rules framed by the commission would be made applicable from 4th April, 2000 and, therefore, any appointment, which was made prior to 4th of April, 2000 could not be disturbed on the ground of lack of qualification. In addition, the rules framed by the Commission vide notification dated 4th April, 2000, do not provide for any such clause of termination. A Government Resolution could not be made applicable retrospectively and it could be applicable only prospectively i. e. from 18th October, 2001 and not even prior to the said date, in view of the earlier Resolution dated 13th June, 2000 by which a legitimate expectation was created in the minds of those who were appointed even after 4th April, 2000 that their appointment may be regularised by following the procedure, as laid down by the Regulations framed by the Commission and, therefore, the impugned Resolution also violates the doctrine of legitimate expectations. All the petitioners have been selected by a duly constituted selection committee and against sanctioned permanent posts. All of them meet the basic qualifications and failure to acquire the additional qualifications cannot be a justifiable reason to remove them from service or to declare them as ineligible to hold the post they have appointed for. Some of the petitioners belong to the reserved categories and they have been appointed pursuant to the directives of the State Government to fill in the reserved category quota by way of special drive. It is urged before us that the Government was required to consider the cases of reserved category candidates on a different footing and more particularly in keeping with the spirit of Article 371 (2) (c) of the Constitution. Elaborating this point, it has been submitted before us that adequate facilities for acquiring the NET/set qualifications are not available in the backward areas like the Marathwada region and the State Government ought to have considered this prevailing reality while issuing the impugned Resolution. The State is required to give special considerations to the prevailing adequate facilities in the backward regions and, therefore, it would have been appropriate for the State Government to extend the period for acquiring the qualifications on par with those who have been appointed prior to 11th December, 1999. In support of these submissions, the learned Counsel have relied upon the following decisions :