State Of Maharashtra vs Shashikant S. Pujari

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(SC) 1190

2006(9) Supreme 910
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
S.B. Sinha and P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
State of Maharashtra - Appellant
versus
Shashikant S. Pujari & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1386 of 2006
With
Civil Appeal No. 1387 of 2006
Decided on 24-11-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : V.N. Raghupathy and Ms. Aparna Bhat, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Vishwajit Singh and Gaurav Agrawal, Advocates.

Headnote:University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - Sections 14, 26 - University Grants Commission (Qualification required of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of a University and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulation, 1991 - Regulation 2 - Appointment as Lecturer - Eligibility criteria - Law College affiliated to University started five year law course in year 1983-84 - Department of Political Science is said to be one man department - Respondent 1 was appointed as a part time lecturer on ‘Clock Hour Basis’ - He was selected through Local Selection Committee of the College - College appointed respondent as a full time lecturer for two years for 1985 and 1986 subject to the condition that he must acquire M. Phil Degree in six years - He obtained an M.Phil Degree in 1986 - On or about 19-9-1991, University Grants Commission revised the qualifications laying down eligibility test for lecturers - University found respondent not qualified to be a full time teacher - On challenge, High Court held that he is entitled to the conferment of status of a full time Lecturer with effect from June, 1999 - Respondent claiming entitlement to the benefit of a full time lecturer from 1983 and not from June 1999 - Whether respondent’s claim could be allowed - (No)
       Held : The purport relaxation granted in terms of the G.R. in regard to the qualifications of the teacher was in relation to those who were already in service in permanent position duly selected by the University Selection Committee prior to revision of pay scales. It was, therefore, not applicable to the case of Respondent. Prior approval, moreover, of the State Government in terms of Section 8(1)(a) of the Act was a pre-requisite. The relaxation of NET/SET examinations in terms of the GR dated 22.12.1995 was granted to the lecturers, who had got more than 55% marks at Masters Degree; passed M. Phil. Examination before 31.12.1993; submitted their Ph.D. thesis; and who were appointed through competent proper Selection Committee constituted by University.(Paras 30 to 32)
       Respondent could not take any benefit of the said circular letter also, inter alia, for the reason that he had not been appointed by duly constituted University Selection Committee. Another question which was relevant but had not been considered by the High Court was that having regard to the breaks in service, he could have been appointed only as a freshly recruited teacher. At one point of time, the College and the University might have committed mistake in treating him as a full-time teacher, but such mistakes could have been rectified, if they were apparent on the face of the records. Moreover, the order impugned in the writ petition, in our opinion, cannot be said to be wholly arbitrary and unreasonable so as to warrant interference by a superior Court. The eligibility criteria cannot be relaxed unless there exists a specific provision therefor. A person can avail the benefit of relaxation notification only when he comes within the purview thereof and when he satisfies the conditions specified therein.(Para 35)
       Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. However, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we direct that no recovery of any amount paid to him, shall be made.(Para 40)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - Shahaji Law College, Kolhapur, is affiliated to Shivaji University, Kolhapur. The institution is under the control of the Government of Maharashtra. It started five year law course in the year 1983-84. The department of Political Science is said to be one-man department.

2. Shashikant S. Pujari (Respondent No.1) was appointed as a part time lecturer. Allegedly, a teacher would be considered to be a full timer, if he has a workload of 12 teaching periods per week subject to his making good the shortfall by taking additional lectures. Respondent was appointed on Clock Hour Basis (CHB). He was selected through Local Selection Committee of the College.

3. Following chart would show the nature of post, period of working and process of selection. So far as the Respondent is concerned:

Nature of PostPeriod of WorkingSelection through Local Selection Committee of College & whether approved by University

Clock Hour basis1.8.1983 to 30.4.1984Selection by LSC of College-(CHB)University granted approval

1.5.1984 to 30.6.198461 days break in serviceBreak not condoned by University

Full Timer (though1.7.1984 to 15.4.1985Selection by LSC of College workload of Part Timer and approval by University.only)

16.4.1985 to 15.7.198591 days break in serviceNot condoned by University

Full Timer (though 16.7.1985 to 30.10.1985Selection by LSC of College workload of Part Timer and approval by Universityonly)

1.11.1985 to 30.8.1986295 days break in serviceNot condoned by University.

Part Timer1.9.1986 to 15.4.1987Selection by LSC of College but no approval from University.

16.4.1987 to 30.6.198776 days break in serviceNot condoned by University

Part Timer1.7.1987 to 30.6.1992Selection by LSC of College but no approval from University.

1.7.1992 to 31.10.1992115 days break in service.Not condoned by University.

Part Timer1.11.1992 to 31.1.1993Selection by LSC of College but no approval from University.

1.2.1993 to 19.6.19952 years and 139 days Not condoned by University.break in service.

During this period one Mr R.A. Patil was appointed by University Selection Committee on Clock Hour Basis.

Part Timer20.6.1995 to till dateSelection by LSC of College but no approval from University.

4. Qualifications for college lecturers were set out in a G.R. dated 31.01.1983, which is in the following terms :

"College Lecturers :

a.good academic record with at least second class (C in the seven point scale) Masters degree in relevant subject from an Indian University or equivalent degree from a foreign university; and

b.an M. Phil degree or a recognized degree beyond the Masters level or published work indicating the capacity of a candidate for independent research work.

Provided that if the Selection Committee is of the view that the research work of a candidate as evident either from his published work is of a very high standard, it may relax any of the qualifications prescribed in (a) above.

Provided further 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 a condition that he will have to obtain an M. Phil degree or a recognized 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."

5. It is stated at the Bar that a person is treated to be Second Class C who has obtained 55% of the marks.

6. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether Respondent satisfied the criteria of having a second class Masters Degree and, thus, could have been considered for regular appointment. Respondents services were approved as a temporary teacher in 1983-84 by the Selection Committee as he is said to have taught in four periods per week. Allegedly, he was taking twelve periods per week, brea