The UGC Regulations 2010 assume a mandatory character and provide for direct recruitment without appointment by way of promotion. The right to be considered for promotion is distinct from the right of promotion.

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. These two writ petitions are at the instance of the State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department and the Director, Higher Education, Maharashtra State. The challenge herein is common. The petitioners have challenged the common order dated 3rd May 2018 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (hereafter “the Tribunal”, for short) whereby Original Application Nos.70 and 786 of 2017, instituted by the respondents in these two writ petitions, were allowed with the following order:

“(i) Both the Original Applications are hereby allowed without any order as to costs.

(ii) The provision of Rule 3 of 2015 Recruitment Rules to the extent removing in the quota for promotion to the senior collegiate branch is hereby quashed and set aside.

(iii) The State of Maharashtra is hereby directed to make suitable amendment in the light of the observations made in paragraph No. 12 above and by taking into consideration any other parameters, within a period of four months from the date of this order.

(iv) In view of disposal of O.A. No. 786/2017, the M.A. No. 356/2017 does not survive and hence the same also stands disposed of.”

2. The respondents in the writ petitions approached the Tribunal with a grievance that the recruitment rules for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Group A), notified by the Higher and Technical Education Department, Government of Maharashtra vide notification dated 13th March 2015 takes away their right of promotion and, therefore, should not be acted upon. As can be seen from the operative part of the order of the Tribunal extracted supra, the respondents obtained the relief that they had claimed from the Tribunal. Not only that, the Tribunal proceeded to direct the State of Maharashtra to make suitable amendment in the rules in the light of the observations made in paragraph-12, within the time stipulated by it.

3. Appearing in support of the writ petitions, Mr. L. M. Acharya, learned special counsel, has taken serious exception to the order of the Tribunal. According to him, the Tribunal’s order is indefensible and ought to be set aside.

4. Before we note the contentions advanced by Mr. Acharya and Mr. Patil, learned advocate for the respondents, we need to notice what the respondents in Writ Petition No. 2744 of 2019 pleaded before the Tribunal.

5. The respondents have been working on the posts of Lecturer (Group B) in a Government college, i.e., Ismail Yusuf College at Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai, in different subjects upon being selected by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission. They are members of the Maharashtra Education Service (Group-B) (Collegiate Branch). All but one of the respondents were appointed in the year 2012; only the respondent no. 1 was appointed in the year 1996. Recruitment rules of 1995 framed by the Government provided that nomination was the only mode of appointment to the post of Lecturer (Group A) in senior college. There was no promotional avenue for lecturers in junior college for promotion as lecturer in senior college. Various representations were made on behalf of the lecturers working in the junior colleges and belonging to the cadre of Maharashtra Education Service (Group-B) (Collegiate Branch) for providing them promotional avenue to the post of lecturers in senior college (Group-A). The Government, through its Higher and Technical Education Department, sought a clarification from the University Grants Commission (hereafter “the UGC” for short) seeking permission to effect changes in the recruitment rules. At the relevant time, the UGC Regulations of 2000 on Minimum Qualification for Appointment and Career Advancement of Lecturers, Readers and Professors in the Universities and Colleges were in force. Although the said regulations laid down the minimum qualifications to be possessed by those candidates seeking direct recruitment, the UGC by letter dated 15th September 2004 informed the Government that