The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of continuous service for pension benefits and the applicability of the Old Pension Scheme or the New DCPS based on the date of commencement of qualifying service.

JUDGMENT

Neela Gokhale, J. - Rule. The contesting Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed an Affidavit in Reply. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. At the end of her career, the Petitioner is forced by her own employer, the State Government, to run from pillar to post for what is rightfully hers. The government puts her through the wringer. It traps her in a maze of legal proceedings. And it does this to deny the Petitioner her legitimate retiral benefits. In acting as it does, the State Government blithely ignores precedent after binding precedent - to all of which the State is itself a party. We refuse to countenance this conduct.

3. The Petitioner is qualified as M.Sc. (Physics) with specialization in Electronics, M.Sc. Electrical Engineering from University of Louisville, Kentucky, USA. She has completed her Doctorate in 2014 also from the same University. The Mumbai University has recognized the qualifications of the Petitioner obtained from University of Louisville as equivalent to that of Mumbai University. The Respondents No.1 and 2 are Departments of Higher and Technical Education of the State. The 3rd Respondent is the Mumbai University, and the 4th Respondent is the Institute of which the Petitioner was an employee till she superannuated. Prior to her regular appointment, the Petitioner was a visiting Faculty in the 4th Respondent Institute since August 1995 and continued teaching in the Institute on a contractual basis in October 1996.

4. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the 4th Respondent Institute for the post of Lecturer in Computer Application, the Petitioner applied and was called to appear before a duly constituted Selection Committee. She was recommended for appointment to the post of Lecturer in the Department of Computer Technology and was in fact appointed by a letter dated 13th March 2000. Since the post on which the Petitioner was appointed was a reserved post, she was appointed on a year-to-year basis. This was not a contractual appointment but was on a regular basis.

5. Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate, appears for the Petitioner. He drew our attention to a series of previous litigations by and between the Petitioner and the Respondents on account of various omissions and commissions allegedly committed by the Respondents from time to time. First among the series was Writ Petition No. 1456 of 2003 filed in this Court. The Petitioner challenged the act of the 4th Respondent Institute in inviting applications to fill up the teaching posts which included the post on which the Petitioner was working. This Court as an interim measure was pleased to direct the 4th Respondent Institute to continue the Petitioner on the said post and not to replace her with any adhoc appointment. The Petitioner thus continued her services on the same post through the year 2000 to 2005.

6. In 2005, the 4th Respondent once again invited applications from open category candidates for the same post. On a Notice of Motion No. 20 of 2005 in the pending Writ Petition, this Court restrained the 4th Respondent Institute from proceeding with the interviews and further directed that the Petitioner will continue that post during the pendency of the Writ Petition. The Respondents No.1 and 2 had granted approval to the services of the Petitioner on her post by order dated 11th July 2005 subject to outcome of the Writ Petition.

7. The 4th Respondent invited applications from Open category candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Computer Application. The Petitioner applied, was interviewed and recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment and was in fact appointed by letter dated 1st January 2008. Much to the chagrin of the Petitioner, the Respondents No.1 and 2 State rejected the proposal for grant of approval to her appointment as Assistant Professor on the ground that her post-graduate degree from the American University was not equivalent to the post-graduate degree of the Mumbai University. For t