SHIKSHAK PRATISHTAAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Considering the controversy involved in these three petitions, the same can be disposed of by a common Judgment.

(2.) For the sake of convenience we are firstly dealing with the facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 1605 of 1992. The petitioners No. 2 to 6 are lecturers in various colleges affiliated to the University of Mumbai. The Petitioners were appointed between 1978 to 1985 and have secured more than 55% marks at the post graduate level and are having good academic record. The State of Maharashtra issued a Government resolution (hereinafter referred to as G. R. ) dated 31st january 1983. By the said G. R. , the State Government directed that the revised qualifications prescribed by the University grant Commission and accepted by the Government of India as shown in appendix A of the Government of India Resolution dated 15th December 1989 shall be made applicable as a condition precedent to the teachers becoming eligible for revised pay scale. The qualifications incorporated in the said G. R. for college lecturers are as under : a) Good academic record with at least second class (C in the seven points scale) Masters degree in relevant subject from an Indian University; and b) An M. Phil degree or a recognised degree beyond the masters level or published work indicating capacity of a candidate for independent research work. provided that if a candidate possessing the qualifications as at (b) above is not available or not considered suitable, the college on the recommendation of the Selection Committee may appoint a person possessing a consistently good academic record on the condition that he will have to obtain an M. Phil. Degree or a recognised degree beyond the masters level within eight years of his appointment failing which he will not be able to earn future increments till he obtains that degree or gives evidence of equivalent published work of high standard.

(3.) The State Government issued G. R. dated 27th February 1989. Paragraph No. 8 of the said G. R. reads thus :