ORDER:---We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as in the connected group of petitions, which have raised a common challenge to the Resolution of the Government of Maharashtra, issued on 18th October, 2001 and more particularly Clause 2(E) of the said Resolution. The said clause reads as under :

^^1½ 'kklu fu.kZ; mPp o ra= f'k{k.k vkf.k lsuk ;kstuk foHkkx dzekad ,uthlh 1794@7945@fof'k 4 fnukad 22 12 1995 jksth ts vkns'k dk<ys vkgsr rs jnn~ dj.;kr ;sr vkgsr-

2½ [kkyhy vVhaoj fnukad 19 9 1991 rs 11 12 1999 ;k dkyko/khr vuqnkfur] fouk vuqnkfur egkfo|kY;krwu o laLFkk ;k e/kwu R;kosGsP;k fuoM lferh ekQZr fu;qDr >kysY;k vf/kO;k[;kaP;k lsok [kaMhr gks.kkj ukghr-

v½ ;k dkyko/khrhy fu;qdR;k >kysY;k lo ¼fcxj usV@lsV½ vf/kO;k[;kaR;kaph fMlscaj 2003 i;ZUr usV@lsV ifj{kk mRrh.kZ gks.ks vko';d vkgs-

c½ Okj uewn dsysY;k eqnrhr usV@lsV ifj{kk mRrhZ.k u gks.kkO;k vf/kO;k[;kaR;kauk R;kaP;k lsokfuo`Rrh i;Zr vf/kO;k[;kaRkk inkP;k osruok<h O;frfjDr brj dks.krsgh vkfFkZd ykHk ¼tls inksUurh ofj"B Js.kh] fuoM Js.kh½ ns.;kr ;sÅ u;sr- lsok fuo`Rr gksbZ i;ZUr rs # 8]000 13]500 ;k osru Js.khrp osru ?ksrhy-

d½ gs fCkxj usV@lsV vf/kO;k[;kaRkk T;k rkj[ksyk usV@lsV ifj{kk ikl djrhy R;k rkj[ksiklqu R;kaph lsok ofj"B Js.kh@fuoM Js.khP;k ykHkklkBh xkzg; /kjyh tkbZy- rlsp] ts vf/kO;k[;kaRks usV@lsV ifj{kk mRrhZ.k gksrhy R;kaps ufo ts"Brk lwphr fu;ekuqlkj lekfo"B dsys tkbZy-

3½ 'kkldh; egkfo|kY;krhy vf/kO;k[;kR;kaP;k lsok egkjk"Vª yksdlsok vk;ksxkP;k lgerhus iq<s pkyw Bso.;kr ;srhy-

bZ½ fnukad 11 12 1999 uarj lsosr vkysys fcxj usV@lsV vf/kO;k[;kR;kauk ;k loyrh ns; vl.kkj ukghr- rlsp] R;kaP;k lsok ifjos{kk dkyko/kh iw.kZ gks.;kP;k vkr laiq"Vkar vk.kkO;kar-

mZ½ fo|kihB vuqnku vk;ksxkus fnukad 4 4 2000 P;k vf/klwpus}kjs fu;fer dsysys fofue; 2000 e/;s ojhy izek.ks 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk ik=rk vV varHkwZr dsyh vkgs- 'kklu fu.kZ; fnukad 13 6 2000 vUo;s gs fofue; loZ fo|kihBs o egkfo|ky;kauk ykxw dsys vkgsr- ;k vkns'kkOnkjs loZ fo|kihBs o egkfo|ky;kauk vlsgh lwfpr dj.;kar vkys vkgs dh] ;kiq<s fnukad 4 4 2000 uarj jkT;krhy egkfo|ky;kar@fo|kihBkar vf/kO;k[;kRkk inkaoj fcxj vgZrk/kkjd mesnokjkaP;k fu;qD;k dks.R;kgh ifjfLFkrhr d: u;sr v'kk fu;qDrk dsY;kl R;koj ekU;rk o vuqnku fnys tk.kkj ukgh- rlsp 4 4 2000 iklwu v'kk fu;qDR;k fnY;k vlY;kl rkRdkG jn~ djkO;kr gs vkns'k loZ egkfo|ky;kauk ca/kudkjd vlwu R;k izek.ks dk;Zokgh u bkkY;kl R;kph tckcnkjh lacaf/kr egkfo|ky;kaph@fo|kihBkaph jkghy-**

2. By the above Resolution, the State Government has laid down that the Lecturers, who were appointed between the period from 19th September, 1991 to 11th December, 1999, and without possessing the qualifications of NET/SET, would be protected and they are required to obtain the said qualifications by December, 2003 or before and in case they failed to acquire these requisite qualifications, within the said period, they would be entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 till their superannuation. In addition, they shall not be entitled for promotion, senior grade or selection grade. Those who passed the NET/SET examination, within the stipulated extended period, would be entitled for senior. Selection grad from that date and their seniority will be also counted accordingly. Such of those Lecturers, who were employed under the Government Colleges, their continuation would be in consultation with the Maharashtra State Public Service Commission. However, it is stipulated in the said Government Resolution that those Lecturers who did not possess the NET/SET qualifications and have been appointed after 11th December, 1999 shall not be given the benefit of extended period to acquire the said qualifications and their services are required to be discontinued before the completion of the probationary period. The petitioners are aggrieved by this clause of termination of service while on probation.

3. It is submitted that the said clause is discriminatory and, thus, violating the guarantee provided under Article 14 of the Constitution. The cut off date viz. 11th December, 1999 is unreasonab

Click Here to Read the rest of this document