The interpretation of the word 'category' under Section 43 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, is crucial in determining the continuity of membership on the Board of Studies despite changes in employment within affiliated colleges.

P.R. Bora, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Communication dated 13-8-2014 whereby the membership of the Petitioner on the Board of Studies of the Respondent University came to be terminated, is questioned by the Petitioner in the present Petition.

3. In the year 2012, the Petitioner was elected as a Member of the Board of Studies for the subject of Economics under the faculty of Social Science under the provisions of section 37(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1994) for the period of five years. Subsequently, the Petitioner also got elected as a Chairman of the Board of Studies. At the relevant time, the Petitioner was serving as Head of the Department in Smt. Sushiladevi Deshmukh Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Latur. On 24-2-2014, the Petitioner was relieved from the post of Head of the Department, Economics from the said college, and on the same day, Petitioner joined as Principal and Head of the Department of the Economics in Saraswati Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, Latur whereupon he was prevented from carrying out his duties as the Chairman of the Board of Studies and though vide communications dated 7-3-2014, 10-3-2014, 21-3-2014 he requested the University Administration to call the meeting of Members of the Board of Studies for the subject of Economics, no such meetings were called and requests so made by the Petitioner were turned down. Ultimately, vide the impugned communication dated 13-8-2014, the Registrar of the Respondent University communicated the Petitioner that, his membership on the Board of Studies has come to a termination, since he had ceased to be the Head of the Department of Economics in Smt. Sushiladevi Deshmukh Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Latur from where he was elected as a Member of the Board of Studies being the Head of the Department of the Economics in the said college. Aggrieved by, the Petitioner has approached this Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner, taking us though the provisions of the Act of 1994 and more particularly section 37(2)(b) and section 43 of the Act submitted that, the impugned communication is patently illegal and unsustainable. The learned counsel submitted that, the Petitioner was elected as a Member on the Board of Studies under section 37(2)(b) of the Universities Act from the category of Head of the Department and since he remained in the said category, though he has joined as Principal in Saraswati Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, Latur, he continues to belong to the category from which he was elected on the Board of Studies. The learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vasant Rao Pawar (Dr.) v. Pune University, (1999) 3 SCC 528 to substantiate his said contention. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent supported the impugned communication and submitted that, the moment petitioner ceased to be the Head of the Department of Economics in Smt. Sushiladevi Deshmukh Manila Mahavidyalaya, Latur he ceased to belong to the category from which he was elected on the Board of Studies and he should be, therefore, deemed to have vacated his office under section 43 of the Act of 1994.

5. On careful consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties, and after having gone through the relevant provisions of the Act of 1994, it is apparently revealed that, the impugned communication is unsustainable and is liable to set aside. The similar controversy, as has arisen in the present matter, was dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Vasant Rao Pawar (cited supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. The question which was for consideration of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid appeal was "whether the appellant who was elected as a Member of the Senate of Pune Univers