Back
2010 Supreme(Bom) 319
In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
MR. JUSTICE NARESH H. PATIL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. A. BRITTO
Dr. Manoj S. Kamat
Versus
Goa University, through its Registrar & Others
Writ Petition No. 7 of 2010
Decided on: 03-03-2010
For the Petitioners:Shri Sahish Mahambrey, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, A. Agni, Advocate & R2, Winnie Coutinho, Government Advocate.
Headnote:Goa University Statutes - Statute SC 5(2)(d) - Promotion as Principal - Grant of - Refusal to - Selection Committee recommended petitioner’s appointment - Disagreed by Vice-Chancellor as petitioner not completed qualifying service of 10 years - Held - Stand taken by University reasonable and in accordance with statute of University - Petitioner passed his M.Com. on 16.7.1999 - His experience in teaching cannot be counted from 1.6.1999 - Petition lacks merit - Dismissed. - In Court’s view, the stand taken by the University is reasonable arid in accordance with the Statutes of the University. In fact the petitioner has not controverted the stand taken by the University. If, according to the petitioner Statute 19(vii)(b)(3) does not say that lecture basis experience cannot be added for the purpose of computing total experience of 10 years, it also does not say that it should be added. The University has understood and consistently proceeded on the basis that such experience ought to be excluded and in that the University’s decision cannot be faulted.
It is not the case of the petitioner that while he was teaching in different colleges from 1.6.1999 to December, 1999 on lecture basis, he had put in a workload of 40 clock hours. It appears that for first 1-1/2 months of the said period the petitioner worked for Sindhdurga, Education Society, Mumbai, and for the next 5-1/2 months the petitioner worked for Murgao Education Society at Goa and it is not the case of the petitioner that during the said period he had put in 40 clock hours of work per week. According to the petitioner himself, he had put in a workload of about 21 lectures of 45 minutes duration which certainly does not work out even to half of the workload which was required of him as full time college teacher. The petitioner’s explanation is that although he did not put in 40 clock hours per week he was all the time available in the college premises during working hours, which explanation has not been accepted by the ’University, and in Court’s opinion, rightly. Admittedly, arid as stated on behalf of the University, the petitioner as on the date of application also did not have qualifying service of 10 years of teaching/research experience in the, Colleges or Universities, which was an essential eligibility criteria for the appointment to the post of the Principal (Readers’ Grade). The research experience, which the petitioner claims was not considered is also the experience, if at all, gained by the petitioner during the time he was teaching and therefore could not be computed separately. Moreover, it is stated by the University that the petitioner passed his M.Com only on 10.7.1999 and any experience to be counted could not be counted from 1.6.1999. These aspects were not at all considered by the Selection Committee but have been considered by the University at the time of declining its approval to the appointment of the petitioner. It has also been stated on behalf of the University that they have given a uniform an consistent interpretation in all cases whilst considering the condition of experience in teaching, that teaching on lecture basis cannot be taken into consideration while computing total experience of teaching of a candidate. As already stated it may be that the Statute itself does not provide that the teaching experience on lecture basis is to be excluded but neither it provides that it is to be included and the fact remains that the University has considered the said provision of Statute 19(vii) as excluding experience gained on lecture basis and that too which is not 40 clock hours per week.
Court finds that the stand taken by the University that total experience of 10 years has to be computed post qualification and on the basis of 40 clock hours per week is both reasonable, and in accordance with the Statutes, and, therefore calls for no interference of the Court in writ jurisdiction.
Service Laws - Appointment in the post to Principle - University of Goa refused the grant of approval - On ground of lack of experience - Held - Total experience of 10 years has to be computed post qualification and on the basis of 40 clock hours per week - Petitioner failed to acquire the both - Stand taken by the University is reasonable - No interference called for in writ jurisdiction.
ORAL JUDGMENT
N.A. BRITTO, J.
Rule. By consent heard forthwith.
2. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the refusal to grant approval by the Goa University (Respondent No.1) for the appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Principal (Reader's grade) of the College managed by Respondent No.3, conveyed to the College by undated letter of October, 2009. The said approval was required to be given in terms of Statute SC-5(2)(d) of the Statutes of the University which provides that the recommendations of the Selection Committee shall be subject to the approval of the Vice-Chancellor. The University has not given its approval for the appointment of the Petitioner as Principal of the said College, as in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor, the services rendered by the Petitioner for the period from June, 1999 to December, 1999 on lecture basis cannot be counted for the purpose of 10 years experience.
3. Some more facts necessary to decide the controversy need be stated:
The College advertised for the filling of the post of Principal(Readers' Grade). As per the advertisement as well as SA-19(vii)(b), the eligibility criteria was as follows:-
(b) Principals(Readers' Grade)
1. A Masters' Degree with at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades 0, A, B, C, D, E & F
2. Ph. D or equivalent qualification
3. Total experience of 10 years of teaching/Research in Universities/Colleges and other institution of higher education
4. The Petitioner applied for the said post of Principal (Readers' Grade) by his application dated 18-6-1999. A duly constituted Selection Committee which had two nominees of the Vice-Chancellor and two experts appointed by the Goa University considered the names of four candidates and shortlisted two of them including the Petitioner and recommended the appointment of the Petitioner for the said post of Principal. This was done after considering their qualifications, teaching and research experience, publications, etc. The College informed the Petitioner by their letter dated 9-9-2009 that he was selected for the post of Principal of their College, and further informed him that a formal order will be issued to him after being approved by the University and the Government of Goa.
5. As already stated, the University vide their undated letter of October, 2009 informed the College that the services rendered by the Petitioner for the period from June, 1999 to December, 1999 on lecture basis could not be considered, and, therefore the Petitioner was not eligible for the post of Principal, and, therefore no approval could be given. The Petitioner was informed by the College about the same vide their letter dated 31-10-2009. The Petitioner appears to have represented to the College and also to the Vice-Chancellor but the Petitioner's request for appointment was again turned down by the University.
6. The University has filed their affidavit-in-reply through its Registrar, and in the said reply, it is contended that the total experience of 10 years of teaching and research in a College and other institutions of higher education refers either to total experience of teaching itself or total experience of research itself or experience of teaching and research taken together. It is stated that the Petitioner did not meet all the qualifications and experience as per the advertisement for the post of Principal and SA-19(vii) of the Statutes of the Goa University and also UGC guidelines prescribing minimum qualifications and experience for the appointment to the post of Principal. It is denied that the decision of the University to reject the approval for the appointment of the Petitioner is unjust, perverse and arbitrary. It is stated that although there were nominees of the Goa University on the Selection Committee that would not take away the power of the Goa University to refuse approval in case the University finds that the approval cannot be given in terms of its Statu
