JUDGMENT :

HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

2. The Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing and setting aside of the appointment order dated 23rd March, 2026 issued by Savitribai Phule Pune University in favour of Respondent No.6, Dr.Manohar Kachuru Sanap, appointing him to the post of Registrar of the University. The Petitioner has further sought a direction to the University to appoint a suitable candidate to the post of Registrar from the list of eligible candidates published on 15th May, 2024 after excluding the name of Respondent No.6 from the said list. The Petition, therefore, though framed as a challenge to the appointment of Respondent No.6, substantially seeks intervention in the recruitment process for the post of Registrar and, indirectly, reopening of the selection made by the University.

3. Facts as stated by the Petitioner in the Petition are as under:-

(a) The Petitioner is working as Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Chemistry on grant-in-aid basis in Progressive Education Society’s Modern College of Arts, Science and Commerce. He holds B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees and has qualified the CSIR-UGC Junior Research Fellowship/National Eligibility Test as well as the Maharashtra State Eligibility Test. The Petitioner was originally appointed as Lecturer in Chemistry by order dated 31st December, 2001, and his appointment was approved by the University with effect from 1st January 2002. The Petitioner also states that he was appointed as a member of the Senate of the University under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 by communication dated 10th January, 2023.

(b) The Petitioner further contended that Savitribai Phule Pune University issued an advertisement dated 1st February, 2024 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Registrar. The Petitioner, after obtaining permission and No Objection from his management, applied for the said post. His application was acknowledged by the University and on 15th May, 2024, the University published a list of eligible and non-eligible candidates in which the Petitioner’s name appeared at serial no.14 in the list of eligible candidates. He was thereafter called for interview by communication dated 20th June, 2024 and appeared for the interview and the required presentation on 11th July, 2024. According to the Petitioner, thereafter no intimation was given to him for a considerable period and he subsequently learnt that Respondent No.6 had been appointed as Registrar by order dated 23rd March, 2026.

(c) The principal grievance of the Petitioner is that Respondent No.6 could not have been appointed because disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him by Respondent No.4, Modern Education Society. The Petitioner relies upon a charge-sheet dated 2nd August, 2024 and an Additional charge-sheet dated 13th December, 2024 issued to Respondent No.6. The Petitioner contends that the allegations pertained to complaints made by women teachers and that Respondent No.6 had suppressed material facts from the University. It is further submitted that the appointment order itself required Respondent No.6 to submit a declaration that no vigilance, disciplinary or departmental proceeding was pending or proposed against him. According to the Petitioner, since the charge-sheet had already been issued before the appointment order, Respondent No.6 was disqualified or, at any rate, unsuitable for appointment. Reliance is placed by Petitioner on the judgment in Union of  India vs. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109, for the proposition that disciplinary proceedings are treated as having commenced when a charge-sheet is issued. The Petitioner also contends that Respondent No.4 had revoked the No objection certi