SURESH CHANDRA Vs. CHANCELLOR NAGPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Writ Petn. No. 1876 of 1984 (Dr. Harihar Bhakre v. Chancellor of Nagpur University) which was decided on Dec. 7, 1984 (reported in 1985 Lab IC 1481), by a Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur (Paunikar and Deshpande, JJ.) wherein the legality of the employment notice issued by the Nagpur University under S.57(4)(a) of the Nagpur University Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as (the Act') vis-a-vis reservation for the backward classes was under challenge, amongst various other points involved in the said petition. The Division Bench took the view that a 'postwise' reservation for backward classes in respect of the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers advertised was not necessary, but that it is enough, if the posts reserved are mentioned numerically out of the total posts to be filled in. The Division Bench further held that having regard to the provisions of S.57(4)(d) and (e) such reservation could be made by the Executive Council under S.57(4)(e) even after the selection by the Selection Committee on merit under S.57(4)(d). In the present petition in which a question as to the legality of a similar employment notice dt. July 27, 1984 issued by the University has arisen, came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur (Mohta and Loney, JJ.). By their judgment dt. 23rd/24th Sept., 1987, the Division Bench expressed their disagreement with the view taken in Dr. Bhakre's case (1985 Lab IC 1481) (Bom). Consequently, the Division Bench directed the papers be placed before the learned Chief Justice for referring the following question to a larger bench :

(2.) The Division Bench refrained from adjudicating upon the other points and said that the same will be considered by the appropriate Division Bench after the question referred is answered by the Larger Bench. It appears from the judgment that 11 more petitions in which a similar point arises are pending before the Nagpur Bench. The learned Chief Justice by his order dt. Dec. 29, 1987, directed that the matter to stand transferred to Bombay Full Bench to decide the entire petition and not merely the reference.

(3.) At the commencement of the hearing of this petition we enquired with the learned counsel appearing on both the sides as to whether they had any objection for hearing the entire petition by this Full Bench. All the counsel stated before us that the matter may be finally disposed of and accordingly we proceeded to hear the entire petition.