MAHARASHTRIYA MANDAL Vs. UNIVERSITY OF POONA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for hearing.

(2.) THE petitioners are running an institution known as Chandrashekhar Agashe Shararik Shikshan Mahavidyalaya, at Pune, and it is affiliated to and recognised by the Pune University (University for short ). Since the Principal of the Institution was due to retire in the month of December 1991, the petitioners, by a letter dated November 1991, requested the Vice Chancellor of the University to furnish the names of its two nominees who will work on the Selection Committee to select the new incumbent. They sent another communication to the Deputy Registrar (Academic) of the University enclosing therewith a specimen advertisement, which they intended to publish seeking applications for the post of Principal, for his perusal and guidance. In responding to the former communication the University sent the names of their two nominees to work on the Selection Committee and as regard the latter it sent a letter on January 9, 1992 enquiring of the petitioners as to whether the erstwhile Principal was from the open category or from the reserved category. In reply thereto the petitioners informed the University that the Principal belonged to the open category. The petitioners thereafter sent reminders to the University asking it to accord their sanction to the proposed advertisement. Ultimately, by a letter dated February 18, 1992 the University informed the petitioners that the post of the Principal for which the advertisement was to be issued should be kept reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate. In reply thereto the petitioners, relying upon a Resolution of the State of Maharashtra dated December 19, 1979, pointed out that the post of Principal being an isolated one, it was to be treated as an unreserved one, more particularly in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in that regard. By that letter they, therefore, asked the University to reconsider the matter and issue necessary directions. The University, however, by their letter dated March 28, 1992, reiterated that in view of the subsequent orders issued by the Government of Maharashtra the reservation would be applicable to isolated post by rotation. Even thereafter correspondences ensued between the petitioners and the University authorities wherein they struck to their respective stands, in that, while the petitioners contended that the post of Principal being an isolated one, it was to be filed in by a candidate from open category, the University, relying upon the directives of the Government, insisted upon the filling up of the same by a candidate from the reserved category. The University then gave an ultimatum to the petitioners to fill in the post of Principal according to their directives by December 31, 1992. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) RELYING upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Bhide Girls Education Society v. Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur) reported in 1993 Mh. L. J. 305, the petitioners contended that there being only one post of Head Master, there could be no reservation in such post under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India. The respondents on the other hand contended, relying upon the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Arati Ray Choudhary v. Union of India) 1974 (1) S. C. C. 87, that the post could be reserved by rotation. In explaining as to how reservation by rotation could be made in an isolated post, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that when the first vacancy occurred in the post of Principal it could be given to a candidate of reserved category and the next vacancy in the post could be filled up by a candidate of the open category and so on and so forth.