DAYABHAI MAOJI AYURVED MAHAVIDYALAYA Vs. VINOD SITARAM MANASKHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned Counsel for the non-applicants.

(2.) MR. Bapat, learned Counsel for the applicant in M. C. A. contended that the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 11-3-1991 directed the respondents in the said writ petition to treat the petitioners in the said writ petition as Lectures in the respondent No. 2 Dayabai Maoji ayurved Maha Vidyalaya, Yavatmal, with effect from the date on which they completed three years service as Demonstrators and to fix the salary of the petitioners as Lecturers from the date they are entitled as Lecturers and pay them the salary accordingly, along with the arrears and further directed respondent No. 1 Amravati University and respondent No. 3 Director of Ayurved, to secure the fixation of salary of petitioners in the pay scale of Lecturers. Mr. Bapat, learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the petitioners in the said writ petition those who are non-applicant Nos. 1 to 5 were Demonstrators in the College run by the respondent No. 2 in the writ petition who is applicant petitioner in the Misc. Civil Application. It is submitted that there is no promotional channel provided under the Rules and status of the Nagpur university/amravati University, whereby the persons who are in the category of Demonstrators can be promoted to the posts of Lecturers. It is submitted that as per Ordinance No. 24, Chapter V, Clauses 38 and 39, the appointment of a teacher of the College shall be made by the Governing Body of the college, after inviting applications for the posts by public advertisement, and after considering the recommendations of the Selection Committee as per clause 39. Mr. Bapat, learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the only procedure known as per the rules and ordinance, particularly Ordinance 24 for appointment of a teacher, is by inviting applications and on the basis of recommendations of the Selection Committee. However, in the instant case the respondents were working at the relevant time in the cadre of Demonstrator and were not entitled either by promotion or otherwise to hold the post of lecturer except by following selection process contemplated by Clause 38 of ordinance 24 i. e. by selection pursuant to the advertisement,

(3.) MR. Bapat, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that he was representing the college which was respondent No. 2 in the said Writ Petition no. 1164/87 and also stated before the Court that the petitioners in said writ petition those who are respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7, in view of the approval granted by the Nagpur University would be entitled to be treated as Lecturer from the date they came to be appointed as such and they were also be entitled to the pay scale admissible for Lecturers from the date of appointment as lecturers and also to the arrears. However, that statement was made without understanding the provisions of Ordinance 24 of the Nagpur University which deals with the procedure for appointment to the post of Teacher/ Lecturer. Mr. Bapat further contended that even if he has given concession before the court that the respondents were entitled to be treated as Lecturers from the date they came to be appointed as such, that by itself, does not change the procedure contemplated by Clause 38 of Ordinance 24 of the Nagpur University, which provides that an appointment of a teacher of a college shall be made after inviting applications for the post by public advertisement and after considering the recommendation of the Selection Committee. It is, therefore, submitted that the conclusion arrived at and the direction given by the division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 11-3-1991 are not sustainable in law and therefore, the judgment needs to be reconsidered/reviewed and appropriate orders required to be passed in this behalf. In order to substantiate its contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme court reported in A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 674, (M/s. Northern India Caterers (India)Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi.