OMPRAKASH BABANRAO MUNDE Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) In the first meeting of the Board of Studies at the Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, appointment of Chairman at various faculties was proposed to be held. The petitioner filed his nomination for the post of Chairperson of the Board of Studies in Geography in the faculty of Humanities. The respondent No.3 raised an objection to the eligibility of the petitioner on the ground that there was no Post-Graduate Department at the College where the petitioner was teaching nor was there any Research Centre at the said College. The working Chairman considered the said objection and rejected the same on 2/6/2023. The petitioner accordingly being the only candidate at the said election was declared elected as Chairman of the Board of Studies in the subject of Geography. It appears that the respondent No.3 approached the Vice Chancellor of the University raising an objection to the eligibility of the petitioner to hold the post of Chairman of the Board of Studies. The petitioner was noticed in the matter and after hearing him, the Vice Chancellor on 20/6/2023 has held the petitioner not to be eligible to hold the post of Chairman of the Board of Studies on the ground that there was no Post-Graduate Department at Narayanrao Raja Senior College, Badnera nor was there any Research Centre attached to the said College. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 20/6/2023 in the present writ petition.

(3.) Inter alia, Shri U.J. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Vice Chancellor had no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance raised by the respondent No.3 as to eligibility of the petitioner to hold the post of Chairman of the Board of Studies. Referring to the provisions of Sec. 140 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (for short, 'the Act of 2016'), it was submitted that it is only the Hon'ble Chancellor who has the jurisdiction to decide any question with regard to eligibility/entitlement of any person to hold such office. Referring to Clause 17 of the Uniform Statute No.1 of 2017, it was submitted that appeal under Clause 17(2) could be preferred only by an aggrieved party who had contested the election but was not elected. Since the respondent No.3 did not submit his nomination form for contesting the election of Chairman of the Board of Studies, he had no locus to challenge the election of the petitioner. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Versus District Collector, Raigad and another [(2012) 4 SCC 407] in that regard. Besides aforesaid, it was also sought to be demonstrated that the petitioner was in fact eligible to hold the post of Chairman of the Board of Studies in view of Sec. 40(2)(c) of the Act of 2016.