BHARATI SEN Vs. SNDT WOMENS UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel for parties, taken up for final hearing.

(2.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order dated 11.12.2008 passed by the Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune to the extent it confers on the Petitioner date of promotion as Professor as 3.9.2005 and not 17.8.2004 as per the career advancement scheme purportedly applicable. The petitioner has further prayed for writ of mandamus against the respondents for fixing the petitioner's pay scale as a Professor from 17.8.2004 and for releasing arrears from the said date with 18% interest. By a prayer added on amendment to the writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 17.8.2011 passed by the Joint Director, Higher Education Department, Mumbai Division, by which it has been held that the petitioner was not eligible for two advance increments availed by the petitioner after getting a Ph.D. when the petitioner was working on the post of a Reader.

(3.) The petitioner who possessed the qualifications of having a B.Sc., M.Sc., Bachealor degree in Library Science and a Master degree in Library Science was appointed as a Lecturer in Library Science with the first respondent University on 20.6.1986. The petitioner belongs to the open category. In the year 1996 there was a vacancy in respect of a full time, permanent, open post of a Reader with the first respondent-University. This post was advertised. The petitioner appeared at the interview which was held on 1.8.1996. The petitioner claims that the qualification for the post of the Reader in the subject of Library Science was requirement of a good academic record with a Doctoral Degree or equivalent published work. The petitioner did not have a Ph.D. at that time and was yet to submit her thesis and was in the process of acquiring a Ph.D. It is the petitioner's case that she became eligible for the post of a Reader on the basis of her published work in the field of library science. It is Petitioner's case that on being interviewed by a duly appointed selection committee she was found suitable for the post of a Reader in Library Science as her published work was considered equivalent to a Ph.D. Degree and accordingly she was selected. By an appointment letter dated 14.8.1996 the petitioner was appointed as a Reader on a probation for a period of two years with effect from 17.8.1996 in the SHPT School of Library Science of the respondent no.1-University. By a communication dated 23.9.1998, she was confirmed on the post of a Reader. The petitioner relies upon a Government Resolution dated 11.12.1999 by which a revised pay scales in pursuance of 5th Pay Commission's recommendations were implemented by the State Government, to assert that the minimum qualification for the post of a Reader was good academic record alongwith Ph.D. or equivalent academic work published in Journals.