KANDIVLI EDUCATION SOCIETY COLLEGE Vs. MANOJ J JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1, a registered society, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents that the opinion expressed by the Committee about the eligibility of respondent No. 1 to be a Lecturer (Accountancy) dated 19.9.2006 be quashed and to further quash the order dated 6.6.2003 passed in Appeal No. 101/2002 and also for issuance of an order of restraint prohibiting the said respondent from teaching in the University. The Society, which is a body of ex-students of the respondent college and claims to be interested in maintenance of academic standards and dispensation of education to the students by competent and qualified lecturers, states that the respondent No. 1 is not qualified to be a lecturer in the University of Mumbai, which is a statutory body and provides education to the students. There has been controversy with regard to appointment of respondent No. 1 in the respondentcollege.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 had applied to the respondentcollege in response to an advertisement for the post of Lecturer in Accountancy. He was appointed to that post in furtherance thereto. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 was only an M.Com in Secretarial Practice from Shivaji University and as such was not qualified to be a Lecturer in Accountancy. The qualifications required for the said post is a M.Com degree with Management (Accountancy) as a special principal subject and that he should have also done Advance Secretarial Practice as an allied additional subordinate subject. The appointment of respondent No. 1 was challenged on the grounds that the qualifications prescribed under the circular of University of Mumbai, could not be varied. As respondent No. 1 was not qualified to be appointed as a lecturer, he could not be permitted to continue in that post. There are other serious controversies in regard to his appointment. It is averred that on 11.11.2002, the principal of the College had issued an order of termination of service of the said respondent but the College Tribunal vide its order and judgment dated 6.6.2003 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of termination. The order of the College Tribunal was challenged in Civil Writ Petition No. 1813/2003 in which the Court referred the matter to the Committee of the University in relation to the eligibility and qualifications of the said respondent. The Committee opined that the respondent No. 1 was qualified/eligible to be appointed to the said post and the report of the Committee was placed before the Academic Council on 10.11.2006 which granted approval of the same.

(3.) In the present writ petition, it is averred that there are other serious allegations against said respondent No. 1 and he being not a qualified teacher, would dilute the educational standards in the University, hence, would cause prejudice to number of students and thus, they approached this court in the larger public interest.