Eligibility criteria for public employment must be strictly adhered to; subsequent production of required documents does not rectify initial ineligibility.

JUDGMENT :

Shailesh P. Brahme, J.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides finally at the admission stage with their consent.

2. Petitioner is challenging selection of respondent No.5 as Assistant Professor and seeking further directions to appoint him on the post of Assistant Professor by quashing the appointment of respondent No.5.

3. The petitioner and respondent No.5 belong to OBC category. They participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor advertised by the Management on 17.09.2019. One of the conditions stipulated in the advertisement was, production of the original documents at the time of interview. They were interviewed on 05.02.2020 by a duly constituted selection committee. Petitioner secured 92 marks, whereas respondent No.5 secured 64 marks. The respondent No.5 was selected and appointed vide order dated 20.02.2020 as Assistant Professor.

4. Petitioner and other candidates submitted complaints in writing against the selection of the respondent No.5 on 20.02.2020 as well as 27.02.2020. A specific objection was raised by them that at the time of interview on 05.02.2020, the respondent No.5 was not having valid Non-Creamy Layer certificate, which was a condition precedent and hence, she was not eligible for the appointment. Considering the grievances of the petitioner and others, a Committee was constituted by the respondent No.2 University. Petitioner, respondent Management and respondent No.5 were heard.

5. The Committee gave its report on 19.01.2021 in favour of respondent No.5 and recorded that respondent No.5 was holding educational qualification and was eligible. She was recommended for granting approval. Thereafter vide letter dated 28.05.2021, respondent No.2 granted approval to the respondent No.5, albeit subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition No.12051 of 2015 preferred in the High Court.

6. Learned Counsel Mr. Anil Gaikwad for the petitioner would formulate following submissions :-

(i) Respondent No.5 was not eligible as she was not having Non-Creamy Layer certificate on 05.02.2020, which was a cut off date, in view of condition stipulated in the advertisement. Her selection is overlooking to eligibility criteria.

(ii) Petitioner secured 92 marks and the respondent No.5 secured 64 marks, still she was selected which is discriminatory and arbitrary.

(iii) Respondent No.5 secured Non-Creamy Layer Certificate on 06.05.2021 and submitted it by tendering application on same day, which shows want of eligibility on 05.02.2020.

(iv) The Non-Creamy Layer Certificate produced by respondent No.5 is backdated and cancelled subsequently.

(v) Being wait-listed candidate, petitioner is entitled to be appointed at the place of respondent No.5.

(vi) Reliance is placed on the judgments of (I) Supriya Vinayak Gawande Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, [Writ Petition No.5294 of 2019 with other matters decided on 02.08.2022] (II) Special Leave Petition No.14803 of 2022 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 06.09.2022 and (III) Sanjivani Abasaheb Karne and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, [Writ Petition No.585 of 2023 decided on 30.01.2023].

7. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 support the petitioner. Learned Counsel Mr. S. R. Barlinge for them would adopt the submissions of the petitioner.

8. The respondent No.2 University has filed affidavit-in-reply to defend selection of respondent No.5. Learned Advocate Mr. A. B. Girase appearing for respondent No.2 advances following submissions :-

(a) Present petition cannot be entertained because petitioner could have approached Grievance Committee under Section 79 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

(b) After scrutinizing the proposal for approval, respondent – University called upon Management to remove the deficiencies. Then Non-Creamy Layer certificate was submitted.

(c) After receiving complaints from the petitioner and others, a Committee was constituted to inquire into the illegalitie