KIRANKUMAR DAGADU WANVE AND ANOTHER Vs. DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR MARATHWADA UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No. 1/university invited applications for filling up the post of Assistant Registrar. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 06.03.2012, the petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Registrar reserved for V.J. N.T. category. The petitioners had appeared for written examination. According to the petitioners, they had passed the written examination and subsequently the interviews were to be held on 23.12.2013. The petitioners were called for interviews, however, interviews were postponed due to pending petition in this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of in view of the resolution passed by the management council resolving to scrutinize the applications and to call only those candidates who were found to be eligible. The interviews were rescheduled on 25.11.2014. The petitioners were called for interviews scheduled to be held on 25.11.2014. On the said date also the interviews were postponed. Thereafter it was declared that the interviews would be conducted on 27.07.2015 at 9.30 a.m. The petitioners were not given call letters for interviews purportedly as the petitioners were eliminated from the selection process holding that they are ineligible. The elimination of the petitioners from the selection process is assailed in the present petition.

(2.) Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that, initially twice the petitioners were called for interviews. It shows that, the respondents considered the petitioners eligible for the post of Assistant Registrar. The said interviews were postponed and for the interviews which were scheduled to be held on 27.07.2015, the petitioners were not called for interview. The learned counsel submits that, the petitioner No. 1 is eliminated on the ground that he does not possess required experience. The petitioner No. 1 is working on non grant D. Ed. college and the said post is not approved as described U/Sec. 2(34) of the Universities Act and the petitioner No. 2 is not considered on the ground that, he is over aged on the date of advertisement. The learned counsel submits that, the advertisement does not postulate experience on the post as contemplated U/Sec. 2(34) of the Maharashtra Universities Act. The learned counsel submits that, the respondent No. 1 has discriminated the petitioners. As per the record, out of three candidates short listed, one candidate Dr. Smt. Sunita Jogram Rathod does not qualify the so-called requirement U/Sec. 2(34) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, as she is working in DIET, which comes under NCTE, Bhopal and has absolutely no concern with the university. Similar is the case in respect of Shri Ramnath Gopinath Pawar who was working in Milind Arts College (Junior), Aurangabad and is working as assistant teacher in higher secondary section and has no concern with the university. One Shri Bharat Wagh and Smt. Anita Patil were working in the institutions which even remotely has no concern with the university are appointed as section officers under the respondent No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 had secured 53 marks out of 70 marks in the written examination and was topping the list of candidates who had applied for the post of Assistant Registrar pursuant to the advertisement in question. His claim can be considered in the order of merit irrespective of his social status. One Mr. G.D. Nage is appointed from the open category for the post of Assistant Registrar. The other candidates who were approved by the Deputy Director of Education and were working in non grant college are concerned as eligible by the respondent No. 1, however, on the said ground, the petitioner No. 1 is eliminated. This shows the ulterior motive of the respondent No. 1. The service condition of aided and non aided colleges are identical and there is no distinction. Therefore, service in non aided college cannot be a ground to eliminate the candidature of the petitioner No. 1.

(3.) The learned counsel further submits that, elimination of the petitioner No. 2 is on two counts. One he is working in non granted college and secondly he is over age. Elimination of the petitioner No. 2 is unsustainable. So far as ineligibility of the petitioner No. 2 on the count of over age is concerned, the same is bad in law. One Mr. Nage who was considered, was above fifty years of age. The petitioner No. 2 is working in an affiliated college to the respondent No. 1. The petitioner No. 2 was of 38 years 01 month and 28 days old on the date of application. As per the provisions of the Standard Code Rule, appointment by nomination of a candidate can be made who is not more than 40 years of age, unless already in service of university or affiliated colleges. As the petitioner No. 2 is serving in an affiliated college to the respondent No. 1, the petitioner No. 2 has to be held to be within age. One Mr. Sanjay Kisan Pawar and Mr. Gulab Nage were considered eligible, though they have crossed 40 years of age. The petitioner No. 2 is also discriminated on the said count.