JUDGMENT :

B.R. Gavai, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. Petitioners who are working as Assistant Professors with Respondent No. 3-University, have approached this Court, praying for directions to the Respondents to treat the Petitioners as permanent teachers in the post of Assistant Professor and extend the benefits and facilities, as admissible to the said post and ancillary benefits.

3. Heard Mr. Pakale, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners.

4. Mr. Pakale, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the Petitioners have been appointed as Assistant Professors right from the year 2012-13 on 'year to year' basis and, thereafter, have been continued on year to year basis; albeit, showing the same to be fresh appointments. He therefore submitted that perusal of the material placed on record would clearly reveal that the posts are permanent and the Respondent University has illegally and arbitrarily continued the Petitioners on an ad-hoc basis, though the Petitioners are entitled to be treated as permanent employees. Mr. Pakale, learned Counsel, though fairly admitted that the appointments of the Petitioners are made under the provisions of Section 77 of the erstwhile Maharashtra Universities Act, however submitted that the difference between the appointment under sections 76 and 77 is only a procedural one and not substantial. He submitted that since the appointments are made after due selection process is followed, the Petitioners deserve to be granted relief as prayed by them.

5. Mr. Pakale also relies on the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sachin Ambadas Dawale and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2014 (2) Mh.L.J. 36. He submitted that the facts in the present case are almost identical with the facts in the said case and as such, the present Petitioners also deserve to be granted the relief which was granted by Division Bench of this Court in the said case. He further submitted that an SLP filed by the State of Maharashtra, challenging the Judgment of Division Bench of this court in the case of Sachin Ambadas Dawale (supra) has also been dismissed and the view taken by this Court in the said case has been upheld.

6. Mr. Borkar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent University, on the other hand, submitted that the appointments of the Petitioners are made purely on temporary basis, inasmuch as the posts are created for the Courses which are conducted by the University on self financing basis. He submitted that unless and until the University is confident that it will get a particular number of students available per year, so as to make the Courses viable, it cannot take a decision to make the posts permanent. He submitted that decision to make the posts permanent and fill them up in accordance with the provisions of Section 76 of the said Act would arise only in the event the University decides to continue the said Courses permanently.

7. Perusal of Sections 76 and 77 would reveal that both these provisions are totally different. No doubt, the constitution of Selection Committee in both the said Sections is somewhat similar, however, the procedure prescribed is totally different. Insofar as Section 76 is concerned, the post to be filled-in has to be widely advertised according to the draft approved by the Vice Chancellor together with particulars of minimum and additional qualifications etc. As has been stated in the affidavit filed by Dr. Vilas Dattu Nandavadekar, the advertisements for filling up permanent posts are given in National Newspapers, so also in various Science Journals. Per contra, Section 77 provides for filling up of temporary vacancies of University Teacher. It could be seen that in contradistinction to the provisions of Section 76, the appointments made under Section 76 are also amenable to challenge before the Hon'ble Chancellor. A person aggrieved can approach the Hon'ble Chancellor under sub-section