JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner put-forth prayer clause-C as under:

“C) By way of appropriate Writ, order or direction in the like nature, the Hon’ble High Court may kindly direct the respondent authorities not to make applicable the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (New Pension Scheme) to the service of petitioner, pursuance to the Government Resolution dated 31st October, 2005, as the appointment of the petitioner is prior to 31st October, 2005.”

3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits on instructions that though he has challenged the Government resolution dated 31.10.2005, he would not press the said prayer and he desires that his claim be decided in the light of his appointment order and the placement granted to him.

4. Having considered the strenuous submissions of the learned advocates representing the respective sides, we find that the sequence of events need to be set out as under:

A) Respondent no.4-University published an advertisement dated 07.08.2004 in various newspapers for flling up various posts including the post of a Junior Assistant.

B) The petitioner applied in pursuance to the said advertisement. As a part of the selection process, he was directed to produce documents vide communication dated 12.08.2005.

C) On 17.10.2005 he was issued with an appointment order placing him on probation as a Junior Assistant and granting him time up to 17.11.2005 for reporting for duties.

D) A specific statement on oath has been made in the pleadings that the petitioner reached the University to tender a joining report dated 29.10.2005, addressed to the Registrar of the University.

E) Since the University was on Diwali Vacation, no authority was available to accept his joining report. Eventually, after the Diwali Vacation, his joining report was accepted on 08.11.2005 by mentioning his date of appointment as 17.10.2005.

5. The strenuous submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the recruitment process was initiated on 07.08.2004. The interview took place prior to the University calling upon him on 12.08.2005 to tender all necessary documents. His appointment order issued on 17.10.2005 is indicative of the fact that he was selected and appointed. It was not a case of mere selection, oblivious of whether an appointment order would be issued to him. The office order dated 08.11.2005, posting the petitioner in a particular department, also carries the reference to his appointment order dated 17.10.2005.

6. The learned AGP and the learned advocate representing the University, have vehemently opposed this petition. Their contention is that the petitioner actually joined duty on 08.11.2005. The Government resolution dated 31.10.2005 indicates that a person must be recruited in employment prior to 01.11.2005. Though the petitioner may have been selected and appointed vide appointment order dated 17.10.2005, his actual date of joining is material and, hence, it is apparent from the face of the record that the petitioner joined duties on 08.11.2005.

7. A similar issue fell for consideration of this Court (Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge & Sandipkumar C. More, JJ.) in Dnyaneshwar Balasaheb Sonawane and Others V/s. State of Maharashtra and others; (2022) 6 Mh.L.J. 64. In the said case, though the recruitment process commenced prior to 01.11.2005, this Court did not accept the submissions of the petitioner that, as the recruitment process commenced prior to 31/10/2005, the commencement date is significant. Mere commencement of recruitment process may not be enough for the reason that unless a candidate is selected and appointed, it cannot be concluded that he has entered employment. It is trite that mere selection does not give a right for appointment. Until an appointment order is issued, the candidate cannot presume that he has been appointed in service.

8. In Vijay Kumar Misra V/s. High Court of Judicature of Patna; 2016 9 SCC 313, it