PER B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

2. All the petitioners in these petitions challenge the action of the respondent No.2 - Search Committee, inasmuch as, the said Committee has not called the petitioners for interview/presentation before it, for the post Vice Chancellor of the respondent No.3 University.

3. Since the issues involved in the petitions are identical, the same are being finally disposed of by this common judgment.

4. An advertisement was issued by the Chairman, Search Committee for inviting applications for the post of Vice Chancellor of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University (hereinafter referred to as “the University”). The said Search Committee came to be appointed according to the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, as amended by the Act No. XIV of 2009. It appears that after receipt of the applications, which were about 100 in number, the Search Committee decided to call only 34 persons, for presentation before the Committee. The petitioners were not called for the presentation. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.2 Committee, in not inviting them for the purpose of presentation, the petitioners have approached this court.

5. We have heard Shri Jadhavar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Kadam, the learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6. Shri Jadhavar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that as per the advertisement which was published, though short listing of the candidates applying for the post was permissible, the same cannot be done in the manner, which contravenes the order issued by the State of Maharashtra dated 27th May, 2009 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said order” for short). The learned counsel submits that in view of Clause I of the said order, the qualifications as prescribed in Part A of the Schedule are mandatory and unless the candidates qualify the requirements prescribed in part A of Schedule to the said order, the candidate cannot be considered for the post of Vice Chancellor.

7. The learned counsel further submits that all the persons named in para.7 of the W.P. No. 6576/2010, who have been invited by the Committee, do not answer the requirement in part A of the Schedule of the said order. It is submitted that though petitioner - Prof. Bhise qualifies all the requirements of Part A, he has not been called for presentation. The learned counsel further submits that in so far as Dr. Khillare is concerned, though he has worked as Head of the Department for 2 years, if his experience as Director of Students Welfare is taken into consideration, then, he would be meeting the requirement of possessing 5 years administrative experience. The learned counsel fairly concedes that in so far as Dr. Kulkarni is concerned, he possesses only 2 years experience as Head of Department. It is submitted that in accordance with the relevant statutes of the University, the Post of Head of Department goes by rotation amongst all the Professors. It is, however, submitted that in so far as the other Universities are concerned, such is not the requirement and, therefore, the provision in the said order, which requires that a candidate must have 5 years of administrative experience is discriminatory in nature and, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.

8. Shri Jadhavar further submits that on comparative assessment with the 5 persons named in para. 7, as stated hereinabove, it would reveal that the petitioners are much more qualified and entitled to be considered for the post of Vice Chancellor, than the aforesaid 5 persons.

9. The learned counsel submits that since the petitioners are not challenging the invitation issued to the aforesaid 5 persons, it is not necessary to join them as party respondents in the present petitions. The learned counsel further submits that the limited relief claimed in the petitions, is an opportunity to