Bombay High Court
WP/5926/2015 of DR. NANDKISHOR s/o HANUMANTRAO DESLE AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS on 23 December 2015
-judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2082 OF 2013 Maharashtra Federation of University & College Teachers Organizations having its registered office at C/o. BUCTU, Vidyapith Vidyarthi
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
7
Decisions referred to
In this index
5
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION NO. 2082 OF 2013
Maharashtra Federation of University& College Teachers Organizationshaving its registered office at C/o.BUCTU, Vidyapith Vidyarthi BhavanBRoad, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020(through its General Secretary)
….Petitioner.
Vs.
1The State of Maharashtrathrough the Principal SecretaryDepartment of Higher & TechnicalEducation Mantralaya, Mumbai400 032.
2The Director of Education(Higher Education), MaharashtraCentral Building, Pune 411 001.
3The University Grants CommissionerBahadur Shah Zafar MargNew Delhi 110 002.(Through its Secretary)Bahadur Shah Zafar MargNew Delhi 110 002.(Through its Secretary)
4Union of India,Through the Secretary,Ministry of Human Resources Departmentserved through the office of AssistantSolicitor General, High Court, Bombay.
...Respondents.
WITHWRIT PETITION (L) NO. 60 OF 2015
MORE KAILAS BHANUDAS AND 191 ORS. ...Petitioner(s)VersusUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND 4 ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWRIT PETITION (L) NO. 383 OF 2015
PROF. SATTENDRA VIJAY RAJE AND 79 OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)VersusUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND 4 OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 643 OF 2015
RAJESHRI P. KADAM AND 63 OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)VersusUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND 4 OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 770 OF 2015
JADHAV KIRAN A AND 12 ORS ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 5 ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1282 OF 2015
RANE SONIA SANJAY AND 6 OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 4 OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1306 OF 2015
DR.VIJAY N PAWAR AND 14 ORS VersusUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND 7 ORS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1311 OF 2015
MRS MICHELLE PHILIP AND 50 OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)VersusUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND 4 OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1544 OF 2015
TEJASHREE VINAYAK SHANBHAG AND 44 ORS. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 5 ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1899 OF 2015
GANESH VISHWAS JOSHI AND 30 ORS VersusUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND 4 ORS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1901 OF 2015
JANINE ALMEIDA VersusUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND 4 ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 2031 OF 2015
RITA ALEXANDER
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 6 ORS
...Respondent(s)
WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 2133 OF 2014
ARCHANA S. THAKUR AND 14 OTHERS
VersusUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND 8 OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2480 OF 2015
PAGAR NARAYAN MURLIDHAR VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 6 ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2575 OF 2015
DR. MRS. SAUMITRA SUSHIL SAWANT ALIAS KUM. VIJAYMALA KRISHNARAO ABITKAR AND 8 ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
VersusUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND 6 ORS....Respondent(s)
WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 2632 OF 2013
MS. LATA S. BHOSALE
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 4 ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3196 OF 2015
JYOTI G. TALWATKAR @ JYOTI R. PARULKAR ...Petitioner(s)
VersusUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND 8 ORS. ...Respondent(s)
ALONG WITH
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Writ Petition NO. 334 OF 2009
DILIPKUMAR ANNASAHEB PAWAR VersusTHE CHAIRMAN UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 336 OF 2009
SUNIL MADHUKAR JOSHI ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE CHAIRMAN UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 338 OF 2009
GAUTAM DNYANDEV DHUMAL ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE CHAIRMAN UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 340 OF 2009
DEEPAK KRISHNARAO HIMAYATNAGARKAR ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE CHAIRMAN UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 342 OF 2009
BABAN DAMODAR SADAMATE
...Petitioner(s)
VersusTHE CHAIRMAN UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 369 OF 2009
WITHWrit Petition NO. 374 OF 2009
WITHWrit Petition NO. 377 OF 2009
WITHWrit Petition NO. 402 OF 2009
WITHWrit Petition NO. 560 OF 2014
PRABHAKAR EKNATH JADHAV AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 781 OF 2015
DR. MADHAV DAGDU PAGARE ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition (ST) NO. 809 OF 2015
RAMAKANT PRABHAKAR JOSHI AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 1371 OF 2015
PROF. DEEPAK RAJARAM YEOLE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)VersusUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 1378 OF 2015
DR. LAHANU GOVIND RETWADE AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
VersusUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 1467 OF 2011
SOPAN MANSING RATHOD
Versus
...Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 1472 OF 2011WITHCivil Application NO. 254 OF 2015
PRAMOD DATTATRAYA SONAWANE VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 1479 OF 2011WITHCivil Application No. 255 of 2015
KISAN MAHADEO GADVE Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 1480 OF 2011WITHCivil Application No. 256 of 2015
AHER RANGNAT KISAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 1481 OF 2011WITHCivil Application No. 258 of 2015
DNYANESHWAR MARUTI MAHAJAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 1662 OF 2014
SANJAYKUMAR MARUTI MAGDUM AND ORS VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPT OF HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 1664 OF 2014
SHR. SHALGAONKAR SUDAM RAJRAM AND ANR ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPT AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 1714 OF 2011WITHCivil Application No. 257 of 2015
DR GUGALE GULAB SHESHMAL
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 1811 OF 2009
SALIL IBRAHIM MODAK VersusDR. BALASAHEB SAWANT KOKAN KRISHI VIDYAPEETH, DAPOLI AND ANR.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 1987 OF 2015
PRATAP BAPUSO LAD VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 1988 OF 2015
RAJENDRA KARBHARI PATIL AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 1989 OF 2015
PANDURANG JAGANNATH RUPNAR AND ANR ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 2119 OF 2015
LANGOTE ULHAS BANAB AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)VersusUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 2503 OF 2015
DR. RAMESH MAHADEO GEJAGE AND ANR. ...Petitioner(s)VersusUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 2823 OF 2014
ARJUN GANGARAM NERKAR AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 3195 OF 2015
HANUMANT KRISHNA AWATADE AND ORS VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 3874 OF 2014
SHRI. DR. BHARAT VITTHAL PATIL
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH SECRETARY,HIGHER EDUCATION DEPT AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 4455 OF 2015
DR. GHORUDE TATYARAO NAMDEORAO AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5591 OF 2015
SHIVAJI UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (SUTA) THROUGH ITS OFFICE SECRETARY DR. S.A. BOJAGAR AND ORS
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOV. OF MAHA. AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5762 OF 2015
MAHARASHTRA NET/SET QUALIFIED TEACHERS ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS ACTING PRESIDENT DR. A BAGUL AND ORS
VersusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5849 OF 2015
DR. SHESHRAO S/O VENKATRAO SHETE
Versus1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5851 OF 2015
DR. VIVEK VISHNUPANT JOSHI AND ORS.
VersusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY FOR HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Civil Application (St.) No. 27919 of 2015IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5851 OF 2015
Krishna K. Dixit
Vs.
DR. VIVEK VISHNUPANT JOSHI AND ORS.
..Applicant
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5863 OF 2015
SHRI VILAS RAMBHAU THAKRE & OHR.
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5864 OF 2015
DIWAKAR MALOJI KAMBLE
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTH.
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5865 OF 2015
PRAMILA D/O UDHAVRAO BHAGAT AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5866 OF 2015
DR. SANJAY DIGAMBAR PALWEKAR
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTH.
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5867 OF 2015
DR. SYED HUSAIN HAIDAR ZAIDI Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5868 OF 2015
DR. (MRS) KALPANA VASANT JADHAV
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTH.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5869 OF 2015
DR.WASUDHA JAGDISH
MESHRAM AND 2 OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5870 OF 2015
DR.MADHAV S/O. KISANRAO ZARE
VersusTHE SATES OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5871 OF 2015
DR. MS. MUBARAQUE QURAISHI
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5872 OF 2015
DILIP S/O. ZAGA CHAUDHARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5873 OF 2015
DR.RAMESH KAWDUJI NIKHADE
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5874 OF 2015
DR. VILAS S/O BAPURAO AGHAV
Versus
...Petitioner(s)
1) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5875 OF 2015
DR.WASUDEO JAIRAMJI CHOUDHARI
VersusTHE STATE OF MARASHTRA AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5876 OF 2015
DR. RAJESH S/O PANDURANG WAIGAONKAR AND ANR.
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTH.
...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5877 OF 2015
RAJENDRA RAKHAMAJI DANDAWATE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, AND ORS.
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5878 OF 2015
DR. VILAS KESHAVRAO BHIMANWAR
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5879 OF 2015
DR.VILAS TULSHIRAM GAJBHIYE
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5880 OF 2015
SUNITA NATHA KALE @ SUNITA ARVIND JAGTAP AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5881 OF 2015
DR. BABURAO DHARAMDAS GHARADE ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTH. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5883 OF 2015
TANAJI SHAMRAO MOREY ...Petitioner(s)Versus1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5885 OF 2015
RAJU S/O BALIRAM GORE
...Petitioner(s)
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5887 OF 2015
DR. RAMESHKUMAR S/O VISHWAMBHARRAO KAKDE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5889 OF 2015
DR.MAHENDRA PUNDLIKRAO DHORE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THA STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5890 OF 2015
DR.RAVINDRA S/O. MAHADU SALUNKE ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5892 OF 2015
DR RAJESH SHANTARAMJI HAJARE, ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTH. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5893 OF 2015
1) SANJAY S/O. RATAN KHAIRNAR AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRATHROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARYTO GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5894 OF 2015
DR. HARIBHAU S/O TUKARAM SATPUTE ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5898 OF 2015
DR.MANISHA KRISHNARAO DESHPANDE ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5899 OF 2015
VIJAY DALPATRAO KAPSE & OTHRS. VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTH.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5900 OF 2015
DR. ANIL S/O . GANPATRAO GACCHE AND ANOTHER
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5904 OF 2015
VISHWANATH EKNATH PATIL VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5905 OF 2015
TIKARAM S/O DEWAJI KOKE & OTHR. VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTH.
...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5906 OF 2015
NARESH RANGRAOJI YENORKAR VersusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5910 OF 2015
ANIL NARAYANRAO KALYANKAR AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5911 OF 2015
DR. BALIRAM VISHWANATH RAKH AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5915 OF 2015
DR. SHARAD RAMCHANDRA DAVARE AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5916 OF 2015
SANJAY NATTHUJI SHENDE AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)Versus1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5917 OF 2015
VILAS KASHINATHJI GHATURLE ...Petitioner(s)Versus1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5918 OF 2015
1. DR. BHAGWANDAS G. SURYAWANSHI ...Petitioner(s)VersusVersus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5922 OF 2015
BHUMREDDY VITHALREDDY PULLAGOR. VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5923 OF 2015
NANASAHEB S/O SANTOSH PATIL
VersusTHE NORTH MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY AND OTHER
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5926 OF 2015
DR. NANDKISHOR S/O HANUMANTRAO DESLE AND OTHERS
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
Writ Petition NO. 5927 OF 2015
NAGPUR UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SHRI ANIL WAMANRAO DHAGE
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5928 OF 2015
DAYANAND RAMRAO MANE AND ORS.
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5929 OF 2015
ASHA NATTUJI KATEKHAYE
...Petitioner(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5942 OF 2015
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5944 OF 2015
WITH
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5954 OF 2015
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5955 OF 2015DR. ANIL SHIVRANGI DAHAT AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5956 OF 2015
SUBHASH GIRDHAR SALUNKE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5957 OF 2015
JUGAL PANDURANG TAYADE. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5958 OF 2015
BHARAT MOTIRAM RATHOD ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5960 OF 2015
DR. BALKRISHNA BALIRAM PARSHURAMKAR ...Petitioner(s)Versus1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5962 OF 2015
DR.ANIL MAHADEORAO SHENDE ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)WITHWrit Petition NO. 5963 OF 2015
SHASHANK JANARDAN AGLAWE AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5964 OF 2015
DR. NAMDEO S/O NIVRUTTI MUNDHE. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5965 OF 2015
1) KAILAS S/O BHALERAO PATIL AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5967 OF 2015
PRITHVIRAJ JAISING KHINCHI ...Petitioner(s)Versus1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5969 OF 2015
BHASKAR S/O. SHANKAR TEKALE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5972 OF 2015
BIPINCHANDRA S/O NARAYAN SHINDE AND ANR ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5974 OF 2015
GAJANAN RAMRAO SOMKUWAR ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5976 OF 2015
DR. ABHAY BHAUSAHEB SALUNKE ...Petitioner(s)Versus1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5981 OF 2015
DR.KALIDAS S/O PRABHAKARRAO GUDADE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5982 OF 2015
ANIL DEWAJI GAIKWAD ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5986 OF 2015
RAMESHCHANDRA FULCHAND AGARWAL ...Petitioner(s)
VersusTHE NORTH MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY AND OTHER ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5989 OF 2015
DR. SADASHIV KISANRAO KAMALAKAR AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5990 OF 2015
RADHESHYAM KUSAN DIPTE
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5994 OF 2015
DR. VIJAY S. DIGHORE AND OTHERS VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 5995 OF 2015
MADHUKAR FAKIRAJI JADHAV ...Petitioner(s)Versus1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5996 OF 2015
NAGPUR UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6001 OF 2015
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6009 OF 2015
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6010 OF 2015
DR.(MRS) SHALINI RAMDAS FULMALI AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)Versus1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6011 OF 2015
RAMESH R. KOHAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6012 OF 2015
SANJAY SAHEBRAO TAKADE
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6013 OF 2015
PRAKASH LAXMANRAO NEULKAR AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6014 OF 2015
ANANDRAO RATIRAM RAMTEKE
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6029 OF 2015
DR. SHASHIKANT SHIVAPPA TOLMARE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MAHARASHTRA STATE AND ORS.
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6030 OF 2015
DR. RAMESH UMLA ADE AND ORS. VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6032 OF 2015
DR.MAHESH S/O SAKHARAM BACHEWAR ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6033 OF 2015
DR. NANASAHEB BALASAHEB PATIL AND ORS
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6035 OF 2015
SHRI SUHAS TUKARAM KOLIKAR AND ORS. VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6036 OF 2015
DR. AJAY S/O. PRABHAKAR KUNTE AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
OF GOVERNEMENT OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6037 OF 2015
DR. BALU S/O. SOPANRAO GITTE AND ORS.
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6038 OF 2015
DR.KISHAN S/O RAMLU SUNEWAR ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6039 OF 2015
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6040 OF 2015
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6041 OF 2015
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6043 OF 2015
SUHAS S/O. RANGNATHRAO MORALE AND ANR. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6045 OF 2015
SUNIL GULAB PANPATIL
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6046 OF 2015
DR.SHRIRAM S/O SATWAJI JADHAV VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6047 OF 2015
SUNIL MADHUKAR NAVE AND ORS.
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6048 OF 2015
SATISH S/O. SURESHRAO HIVAREKAR AND ANR. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6049 OF 2015
DR. (MRS) BHAVANA WAMAN KHAPEKAR(MISS BHAVANA T. KOHAD)AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6050 OF 2015
RAVI DHONDIRAJ BARDE
...Petitioner(s)
VersusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6051 OF 2015DR.SANJAY S/O NIVRATIRAO SHINDE ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)WITHWrit Petition NO. 6055 OF 2015RAJKUMAR KISANRAO BHAGAT, ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6057 OF 2015LOTAN JAGANNATH GAWLI AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6059 OF 2015
KAILASH SHRAVAN PATIL AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6061 OF 2015
DR. MOHAMMAD ABDUL BASEER S/O MOHAMMAD ABDUL BARI ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6063 OF 2015
DR. RAMESH MOHANRAO DHONDGE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6064 OF 2015
DILIP DAJIBA CHAUDHARI ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6068 OF 2015
SUNIL RAOSAHEB RAUT
Versus
THE UNION OF INIDA AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6069 OF 2015
SHRINIVASRAO RANGRAO BHUPALWAR VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASTRA
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6070 OF 2015
MADHAV NAMDEV GAIKWAD AND ORS VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6073 OF 2015
PROF. ARUN S/O BABURAO JADHAO Versus
...Petitioner(s)
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6074 OF 2015
DR. MADHUKAR PANDHARINATH AGHAV AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6075 OF 2015
VASANT DEVIDASRAO SATPUTE ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6076 OF 2015
NAGPUR UNIVERSITY TEACHER'S ASSOCIATIION, AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)VersusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6077 OF 2015
DR. MADHAVRAO RAGHOJI JADHAV AND ORS.
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6078 OF 2015
ASHOK DAULATRAO CHAVAN AND ORS
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6079 OF 2015
SURESH S/O. BHASKAR DHAKE ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6080 OF 2015
RAJENDRA UESHWANTRAO DESHMUKH ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6081 OF 2015
DR. ANAND VISHWANATH MANWAR ...Petitioner(s)Versus1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6082 OF 2015
DR.SANJAY PANDURANG PATIL ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6088 OF 2015
DR.SURESH KAUTIK SHELAR ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6090 OF 2015
DR. SYED SHUJAUT ALI S/O SYED INAYAT ALI ...Petitioner(s)Versus1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6092 OF 2015
NAGPUR UNIVERSITY TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS ,
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY,
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6100 OF 2015
DR. KAMLAKAR S/O ESHAO ASKAR
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6105 OF 2015
CHHAYA VECHYA THINGALE
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6108 OF 2015
NARENDRA S/O SUMERCHAND SHARMA
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6111 OF 2015
RAJU S/O SITARAM PAWAR AND OTHERS
Versus1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS THROUGH
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6112 OF 2015
VIJAY S/O. BHOJU KHAIRNAR VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6115 OF 2015
ANIL S/O MAHADU CHAUDARI VersusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6116 OF 2015
NAGPUR UNIVERSITY TEACHER'S ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6117 OF 2015
DHIRAJ RATILAL VAISHANAV Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Civil Application No. 1847 of 2015INWrit Petition NO. 6117 OF 2015
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VersusDHIRAJ RATILAL VAISHANAV
….Applicants.
...Respondent
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6118 OF 2015
ASHOK S/O PANDURANG NIKAM
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6121 OF 2015
ANIL S/O. VITTHAL BAVISKAR
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6124 OF 2015
DR. KISHOR S/O. GOVIND KOLHE & OTHERS
VersusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6125 OF 2015
DR. SIRAS BHAYYALAL KATMUSARE AND OTHERS R/O RANI INDIRABAI
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6126 OF 2015
DR.SHAKUNTALA MITHARAM BHARAMBE
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6129 OF 2015
IDRISKHAN S/O GOHARKHAN PATHAN
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
...Petitioner(s)
OTHERS THROUGH ITS SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6131 OF 2015
DR. SUNIL GANPAT BAVISKAR
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6133 OF 2015
SAU. MANDAKINI NILKANTH CHAUDHARI
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6135 OF 2015
VISHWAS S/O NIMBA KOLI & ORS
VersusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6137 OF 2015
DR. KARUNA W/O PRATAP DESHMUKH
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6138 OF 2015
DR. SANGITA SANDEEP SHINDE
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6139 OF 2015
SHIVSHANKAR S/O NAGASHETTEY HALLALE, VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6140 OF 2015
RAVINDRA MARUTI CHOBHE AND OTHERS VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6141 OF 2015
PROF.DR.AVINASH YOGRAJ BADGUJAR VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6142 OF 2015
DR. KIRANKUMAR S/O LAXMANRAO BONDAR VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6144 OF 2015
HIRALAL MANGAL PATIL VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6145 OF 2015
DR. VANDEO CHIMANJI BORKAR VersusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6146 OF 2015
MOHAN S/O THOGYA PAWARA VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6147 OF 2015
DR. DILIP S/O SAMBHAJIRAO PALIMKAR AND ANOTHER
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6148 OF 2015
PROF. DR. SMT. INDIRA SANTOSH PATIL
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6152 OF 2015
GOVIND ONKAR CHAUDHARI
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6153 OF 2015
NILESH S/O HIRALAL CHITTE
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6154 OF 2015
SATISH S/O KISHANPRASAD TIWARI
...Petitioner(s)
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6158 OF 2015
SAU. JAYASHREE C. SALUNKHE ...Petitioner(s)VersusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6161 OF 2015
MADUKAR S/O GANDADHAR KASAR ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6164 OF 2015
SHAIKH HASIM HOHD. ISSAK ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6166 OF 2015
JITENDRA SHAMSING GIRASE ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6167 OF 2015
MIRZA MAQSOOD BAIG AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6180 OF 2015
NITIN PANDURANGRAO BAWALE VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS .
...Petitioner(s)..Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6181 OF 2015
ASHOK S/O. RANGNATH TUWAR ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6182 OF 2015
RAJENDRA BHASKAR INGALE ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6185 OF 2015
NIRMALA SAHADEO WANKHEDE ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6195 OF 2015
APSING S/O. RUMA VASANE ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6198 OF 2015
KANTILAL RAJBHAU SONWANE ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6212 OF 2015
SANJAY JAGANNATH BHADANE VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6215 OF 2015
DR.SATISH S/O ADHAR PATIL VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6291 OF 2015
PRADEEP RAMCHANDRARAO BHANSE
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6294 OF 2015
BIKASHCHANDRA MUKUNDA ROY
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6295 OF 2015
PROF.DR.SUNIL S/O. SHANKARRAO BIDWAIK
VersusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6297 OF 2015
BUDHAGHOSH M. LOHAKARE .
Versus
...Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6310 OF 2015
RAMESH RAMCHANDRA HALAMI ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6700 OF 2015VANDANA NARAYANE RANE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6710 OF 2015
ANAND VIJAYRAOKUMAR WALANKIKAR ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6713 OF 2015
GODAVARI NARAYANRAO BHUSARE ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6715 OF 2015
SUREKHA SANDASHIVRAO SHINDE AND OTH. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)WITHWrit Petition NO. 6717 OF 2015
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6719 OF 2015
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6748 OF 2015
DR. MADHAV S/O CHINTAMANI KHOT AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6809 OF 2015
NANDKISHOR MADHAVRAO MOGHEKAR AND ORS.
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6814 OF 2015
SIDDHARTH S/O NAMDEO MADARE,
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6818 OF 2015
DR. SHIVAJI VITHALRAO WAYBHASE, VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6824 OF 2015WITHCivil Application (St.) No. 22620 of 2015
DR. VINA W/O VIJAY PATIL AND ORS. VersusTHE STAT OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6829 OF 2015
DR.(MRS.) VIDYA SHRIKRISHNA BHARAMBE, (KU. VIDYA M. CHOUDHARI), AND ORS.
(KU. VIDYA M. CHOUDHARI), AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)VersusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6843 OF 2015
VIVEK S/O DOMODHARRAO MURKUTEY ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6845 OF 2015
DR. KISHOR S/O MANIKRAO WATH. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6846 OF 2015
LEMCHAND SAMBHAJI DURGE ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 6896 OF 2015
SHAHAJI DATTATRAYA SHINDE AND ANR. ...Petitioner(s)VersusUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 7352 OF 2015
PRAKASH RAOSAHEB SHINDE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 7447 OF 2015
MANISHA SHANTILAL GIRASE ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPT. AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 7468 OF 2015
RAMRAO S/O BABARAO RAMPURE, ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 7857 OF 2015
SHIVAJI UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (SUTA) THROUGH ITS OFFICE SECRETARY DR. S.A. BOJAGAR AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THORUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 7888 OF 2014
PARAM PUJYA SWAMI VIVEKANAND SEVASHRAM SANSTHA, THROUGH CHAIRMAN ...Petitioner(s)
VersusSHRI. SURYAKANT BHIMRAO KAMBLE AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8026 OF 2015
RAMESH SHESHRAO SONTAKKE & ANR. VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8031 OF 2015
DR. ABHAY S/O MADHUKARRAO PATIL VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8039 OF 2015
DR. SATISH GALPAJI ALGUDE & ANR. VersusTHE UNIN OF INDIA
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8041 OF 2015
CHANDRSHEKKAR H. SAWARKAR AND ANR.
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 27918 OF 2015INWrit Petition NO. 8041 OF 2015
Smita Himmatrao Behere
Vs.
Chandrashekkar H. Sawarkar & Anr.
...Applicant.
...Respondents.
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8073 OF 2015
PROF. MADHUKAR S/O TUKARAM KSHIRSAGAR VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8076 OF 2015
DR. SURYAKANT S/O. NAGNATH KALASKAR & OTHR. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8077 OF 2015
PROF. ARJUN S/O. SITARAM PAWAR AND OTHR ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8078 OF 2015
DR. SHAHURAJ S/O. SUGRIV MULA & OTHR. VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8166 OF 2015
DR. ANIRUDDH S/O SOUNDAJI BANSODE, VersusTHE SATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8167 OF 2015KAKASAHEB S/O GANGADHAR POKALE AND OTHR VersusTHE SATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8176 OF 2015
DR. RAMESH S/O BABURAO CHOUGULE VersusTHE SATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8182 OF 2015
SHAIKH ATIKH S/O USMAN
VersusTHE SATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8183 OF 2015
DR. SHARADKUMAR GANPATRAO NARWADE & ORS. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE SATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8184 OF 2015
SUBHAS SAMPAT WAGHMARE AND ORS. VersusTHE SATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8187 OF 2015
DNYANESHWAR BHIMRAO MAHAJAN AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE SATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8194 OF 2015
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8213 OF 2015
DR. KISHOR HIRAMAN NEHETE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8214 OF 2015
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8254 OF 2015
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8255 OF 2015
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8292 OF 2015
SAMBHAJI BABURAO BHAMBAR AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8301 OF 2015
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8320 OF 2015
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8601 OF 2015
KESARKAR MARUTI AVABA ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8609 OF 2015
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8689 OF 2015
DR. BALASAHEB SAUBA JADHAV Versus
...Petitioner(s)
THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8690 OF 2015
SHRI. ADHIKARAO HINDURAO NIKAM ...Petitioner(s)Versus THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8691 OF 2015
DR. BABASAHEB NANASAHEB RAVAN ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8692 OF 2015
SHRI. NAKADE DHANRAJ BAPURAO ...Petitioner(s)Versus THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS....Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8706 OF 2015
NITIN BHIKA KHAIRNAR ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8707 OF 2015
ANSARI LAEEQUE AHMED S/O. SHABBIR AHMED ...Petitioner(s)Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OFMAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 8710 OF 2015
BALASAHEB MADHUKAR PATIL
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8712 OF 2015
DR. JAGANATH S/O MADHAVRAO BOCHARE AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 9687 OF 2014
SHIVAJI UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (SUTA), THROUGH GENERAL SECRETARY AND ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,DEPT OF HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND OR
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 9994 OF 2014
CHANDORKAR SHRIKANT BHIKURAM
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH JOINT DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 10166 OF 2013
BHARATIYA ELIGIBLE STUDENTS
AND TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, THROUGH PRESIDENT, SHRI. AJAY DAREKAR AND ANR
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 10543 OF 2014
SHINDE DNYANOBA GORAKH
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 10565 OF 2014
PRASHANT DATTATRAYA NAOGHARE
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 930 OF 2015INWrit Petition NO. 10565 OF 2014
Kishore P. Mali
Vs.Prashant D. Naoghare
….Applicant
...Respondent.
WITHWrit Petition NO. 10757 OF 2015
ANITA W/O. JEEVAN BODAKE Versus
...Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 10771 OF 2015
SHRI RAJENDRA VITHALRAO TIJARE & OTHR. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHAASHTRA & ANR. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 11242 OF 2014
MS. LONDHE MANGAL VISHNU ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 11243 OF 2014
MRS. PATIL MEGHA SANJAY ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 11244 OF 2014
SHRI. SHINDE ASHOK RAMCHANDRA ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 11245 OF 2014
SMT. PATIL MEGHA VIJAY
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 11261 OF 2014
MRS. RAJMATI RAJARAM PATIL Versus
...Petitioner(s)
THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 11263 OF 2014
MRS. PATIL VARSHA YASHODHAN ...Petitioner(s)Versus THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 11307 OF 2014
SHRI. SAMPATRAO RAMCHANDRA PARLEKAR ...Petitioner(s)Versus THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 11342 OF 2015
PROF. AMBHORE ASHOK GANGARAM AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)VersusUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 11392 OF 2013
DR. AVINASH B. SHENDRE AND ORS
Versus
UNIVERSIITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 11840 OF 2015
MAHARASHTRA NET SET PATRATADHARAK SAMANVAY
SAMITI THROUGH ITS COORDINATOR AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDU. DEPT. AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 12397 OF 2015
NATIONAL FORUM FOR QUALITY EDUCATION ALIAS RASHTRIYA SHAIKSHANIK GUNWATTA MANCH THRO.B.MUDE AND ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 17682 OF 2015
PRASAD V. LIMAYE
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition (ST) NO. 17689 OF 2015
SUNANDA NARAYAN CHAUDHARI AND ORS.
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 18428 OF 2015
DR. TANAJI KAMAJI UDGIRKAR (KAMBLE) AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition (ST) NO. 18732 OF 2015
DR. KOKANE PRAVIN MANOHARRAO AND ORS VersusUNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition (ST) NO. 18973 OF 2015
PANDIT MAHADEO LAWAND AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 20353 OF 2015
SUDHIR BHIMRAO PAIKEKAR
...Petitioner(s)
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition (ST) NO. 21358 OF 2015
ZENDE PURNIMA UMESH
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition (ST) NO. 22459 OF 2015
SHARMILA P. NIRBHAVANE
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition (ST) NO. 22624 OF 2015
VINODKUMAR KARBHARI PAWAR AND ORS VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition (ST) NO. 22630 OF 2015
PRATIBHA GANESH CHAVAN AND ANR VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition (ST) NO. 22634 OF 2015
DATTA KARBHARI DHAS AND ORS
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition (ST) NO. 22635 OF 2015
DR. MANOJKUMAR SHIVAJIRAO MANE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 22798 OF 2015
MANISHA ANNASAHEB GAIKWAD
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
...Petitioner(s)
SECRETARY AND ORS.
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 23737 OF 2015
SANJAY ATMARAM PATIL AND ORS. VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition (ST) NO. 24846 OF 2015
GANGADHAR GOVIND DHAGE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition (ST) NO. 29860 OF 2015
DR. SAMBHAJI MAHIPATI KALE
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF HIGHER EDU. AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition (ST) NO. 32837 OF 2015
KEDA NIMBA WAGH
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT. OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 32982 OF 2015
ANSARI JAMEELA PASHA NISAR AHMAD VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHWrit Petition NO. 12684 OF 2015
NAGPUR UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, THR. ITS SECRETARY, SHRI. ANIL WAMANRAO DHAGE, & ORS.
VersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE & SPL. ASSTT. MANTRAL
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 333 OF 2015
DHIRAJ S/O RATILAL VAISHNAV.
Versus
CHANDRA IYANGAR AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITHCont. Petition NO. 334 OF 2015
RAJU SITARAM PAWAR AND ORS
Versus
SANJAY KUMAR AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 335 OF 2015
DR.SURESH BHASKAR DHAKE AND ORS
Versus
SANJAYKUMAR AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHCont. Petition NO. 336 OF 2015
VISHWAS S/O NIMBA KOIL AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)VersusCHANDRA IYANGAR AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHCont. Petition NO. 337 OF 2015
SUBHASH GIRDHAR SALUNKE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)VersusSANJAYKUMAR AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHCont. Petition NO. 338 OF 2015
DR. KISHOR GOVIND KOLHE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)VersusSANJAYKUMAR AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHCont. Petition NO. 339 OF 2015
IDRISKHAN S/O GOHARKHAN PATHAN AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)VersusCHANDRA IYANGAR AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHCont. Petition NO. 340 OF 2015
SUNIL MADHUKAR NEVE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)VersusSANJAY KUMAR AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHCont. Petition NO. 341 OF 2015
DR. SUNIL VIKRAM KUWAR AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)VersusSANJAYKUMAR AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 342 OF 2015
SANJAY S/O RATAN KHAIRNAR Versus
SANJAYKUMAR AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 355 OF 2015
DR. NITIN CHINTAMAN KONGRE
Versus
DR P.R. GAIKWAD AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 356 OF 2015
SHRI RAJESH T SAWAI VersusDR P R GAIKWAD
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 388 OF 2015
RAMESH SHESHRAO SONTAKKE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)VersusMR. SANJAY KUMAR, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 389 OF 2015
SHRI SUNIL S/O RAOSAHEB RAUT ...Petitioner(s)VersusSHRI PRAKASH R. GAIKWAD AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 390 OF 2015
RAJENDRA RAKHAMAJI DANDAWATE AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
VersusSHRI SANJAY CHAHANDE, SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITHCont. Petition NO. 391 OF 2015
BIPINCHANDRA S/O. NARAYAN SHINDE AND ANR
VersusSHRI SANJAY CHAHANDE, SECRETARY AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHCont. Petition NO. 395 OF 2015
BHASKAR S/O SHANKAR TEKALE AND ORS VersusSHRI. SANJAY CHAHANDE AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITHCont. Petition NO. 396 OF 2015
PRAMILA D/O UDHAVRAO BHAGAT AND ORS VersusSANJAYKUMAR CHAHANDE AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 397 OF 2015
DR. SURESH KAUTIK SHELAR AND ORS VersusSHRI. SANJAY CHAHANDE AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 419 OF 2015
SATISH S/O. KISHANPRASAD TIWARI VersusDR. MOHAN KHATAL
...Petitioner(s)...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 445 OF 2015
SHRI VILAS RAMBHAU THAKRE AND ORS Versus MR. SANJAY CHAHANDE, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 446 OF 2015
DR. SANJAY VASANTRAO
DESHMUKH AND ORS
VersusMR. SANJAY CHAHANDE, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 447 OF 2015
SHRI VIJAY DALPATRAO KAPSE AND ORS
VersusMR. SANJAY CHAHANDE, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS
...Petitioner(s)
...Respondent(s)
ORIGINAL SIDE APPEARANCES
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rebecca Gonzalves, Mr. Sariputta Sarnath, Mr. Chetan Mali, Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh, Mr. Swaraj Jadhav and Mr. Vinamra Kopariha and Mr. Chetan Mali for the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 2082 of 2013, 2133 of 2014, 60 of 2015, 383 of 2015, 643 of 2015, 1282 of 2015, 1306 of 2015, 1311 of 2015, 1544 of 2015, 1899 of 2015, 1901 of 2015, 2031 of 2015, 2480 of 2015, 2575 of 2015, 3196 of 2015 and 2632 of 2013.
Mr. R.S. Apte, Senior Counsel with Mrs. Anjali Helekar, AGP for Respondents/State.
Mr. Rui Rodrigues a/w Mr. Abhishek Tripathi for University Grants Commission as well as for the University of Mumbai.
Mr. C.R. Sadashivan i/by N.M. Ganguli for the Petitioner in WP No. 770 of 2015.
Ms. I.K. Calcuttawala, AGP in WP No. 770 of 2015.
Mr. Anil Singh, Additional Solicitor General a/w Mr. R.V. Desai Special Counsel, Ms. Neeta V. Masurkar, Mr. Sandesh Patil, Mr.P.S.Gujar, Mr.Dushant Kumar, Mr.N.R.Prajapati for Union of India.
APPELLATE SIDE APPEARANCES
Shri C.G.Gavnekar a/w G.S. Hiranandani for the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 334 of 2009, 336 of 2009, 338 of 2009, 340 of 2009, 342 of 2009, 369 of 2009, 374 of 2009, 377 of 2009, 402 of 2009, 5591 of 2015, 7857 of 2015, 9687 of 2014 and Writ Petition (Stamp) No.20353 of 2015.
Shri Yashodeep P. Deshmukh a/w Ramdas A. Shelke a/w N.M.Ganguli for the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 560 of 2014, 781 of 2015, 1467 of 2011, 1472 of 2011, 1479 of 2011, 1480 of 2011, 1481 of 2011, 1714 of 2011, 1987 of 2015 to 1989 of 2015, 2823 of 2014, 4455 of 2015, 5867 of 2015, 5870 of 2015, 5872 of 2015, 5877 of 2015, 5890 of 2015, 5900 of 2015, 5910 of 2015, 5911 of 2015, 5893 of 2015, 5922 of 2015, 5932 of 2015, 5933 of 2015, 5936 of 2015, 5944 of 2015, 5956 of 2015, 5989 of 2015, 6037 of 2015, 6043 of 2015, 6045 of 2015, 6047 of 2015, 6048 of 2015, 6061 of 2015, 6090 of 2015, 6124 of 2015, 6153 of 2015, 6181 of 2015, 6710 of 2015, 6713 of 2015, 6717 of 2015, 6718 of 2015, 8601 of 2015, Writ Petition (Stamp) 21358 of 2015, 6720 of 2015, 6721 of 2015, 6722 of 2015, 8167 of 2015, 9994 of 2014, Contempt Petition Nos. 334 of 2015, 335 of 2015, 337 of 2015, 338 of 2015, 340 of 2015 to 342 of 2015, 390 of 2015.
Shri Mihir Desai, Senior Advovate along with Ms. Rebecca Gonsalvez i/b Mr. Sariputta P. Sarnath a/w Mr. Chetan Mali a/w Mr. Swaraj S. Jadhav a/w Vinamra Kopariha a/w Ms. Devayani Kulkarni a/w Mr. Yashodeep P. Deshmukh for the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 1371
of 2015, 1378 of 2015, 2119 of 2015, 6061 of 2015, 6111 of 2015, 6117 of 2015, 6126 of 2015, 6137 of 2015, 6140 of 2015, 6146 of 2015, Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 22459 of 2015.
Shri S.P. Kadam a/w Mr. R.P. Hake Patil a/w Mr. Prashant Raul a/w Mr. P.H.Gaikwad for the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 1662 of 2014, 1664 of 2014, 2503 of 2015, 3874 of 2014, 7888 of 2014, 8689 of 2015 to 8692 of 2015, 11242 of 2014 to 11245 of 2014, 11261 of 2014, 11263 of 2014, 11307 of 2014.
Shri R.V.Govilkar for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1811 of 2009.
Shri P. S.Dani, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Milind Deshmukh a/w Mr. Sanjay B. Wakhare in Writ Petition Nos. 3195 of 2015, 8254 of 2015, 8255 of 2015, 8292 of 2015, 8609 of 2015, Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 18973 of 2015.
Shri Sagar A Joshi a/w Shri S.D.Khoban for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5762 of 2015.
Shri A.M.Gorde Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sandeep A. Marathe for the Petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 5851 of 2015, 5892 of 2015, 8041 of 2015.
Shri Firdos T. Mirza a/w Mr. A. I. Sheikh for the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 5863 of 2015, 5864 of 2015, 5866 of 2015, 5868 of 2015, 5869 of 2015, 5871 of 2015, 5873 of 2015, 5875 of 2015, 5878 of 2015, 5879 of 2015, 5881 of 2015, 5883 of 2015, 5889 of 2015, 5898 of 2015, 5899 of 2015, 5905 of 2015, 5906 of 2015, 5917 of 2015, 5918 of 2015, 5929 of 2015, 5935 of 2015, 5945 of 2015, 5952 of 2015, 5954 of 2015, 5955 of 2015, 5958 of 2015, 5960 of 2015, 5962 of 2015, 5963 of 2015, 5967 of 2015, 5976 of 2015, 5982 of 2015, 5986 of 2015, 5990 of 2015, 5994 to 5996 of 2015, 6001 of 2015, 6003 of 2015, 6006 of 2015, 6008 of 2015, 6009 of 2015, 6011 of 2015, 6012 of 2015, 6014 of 2015, 6040 of 2015, 6055 of 2015, 6064 of 2015, 6080 of 2015, 6125 of 2015, 6291 of 2015, 6294 of 2015, 6297 of 2015, 6310 of 2015, 6846 of 2015, 8026 of 2015, 10771 of 2015, 12684 of 2015 Contempt Petition Nos. 355 of 2015, 356 of 2015.
Shri B. G. Kulkarni for the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 5876 of 2015, 6010 of 2015, 6049 of 2015, 6829 of 2015, 6845 of 2015.
Shri Eknath G. Irale a/w Mr. S.W. Mundhe for the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 5885 of 2015, 5894 of 2015, 5981 of 2015, 6033 of 2015, 6036 of 2015, 6070 of 2015, 6075 of 2015, 6078 of 2015, 8073 of 2015, 8076 of 2015, 8077 of 2015, 8078 of 2015, 8712 of 2015.
Shri S.N.Biradar for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5962 of 2015.
Shri N.S.Kadam a/w Mr. D.M.Mane a/w Mr. S.D.Patil for the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 5928 of 2015, 5931 of 2015, 5965 of 2015, 6029 of 2015, 6035 of 2015, 6041 of 2015, 6077 of 2015, 6082 of 2015, 6088 of 2015, 6105 2015, 6121 of 2015, 6129 of 2015, 6135 of 2015, 6185 of 2015, 6212 of 2015, 6809 of 2015, 6818 of 2015, 8197 of 2015, 8198 of 2015, 8213 of 2015, Contempt Petition Nos. 333 of 2015, 339 of 2015, 397 of 2015, 336 of 2015.
Shri Vaibhv V. Ugle i/b Mr. S.V. Talekar for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 6068 of 2015 and Contempt Petition No. 389 of 2015.
Shri Ajit D. Hon for the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 6115 of 2015, 6131 of 2015, 6133 of 2015, 6152 of 2015, 6158 of 2015, 6161 of 2015, 6164 of 2015, 6166 of 2015, 7447 of 2015.
Shri R.G.Panchal for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6824 of 2015.
Shri R.K.Adsure for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11840 of 2015.
Shri Bhupesh Mude Petitionerinperson in Writ Petition No. 12397 of 2015.
Shri A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate a/w Shri S.B. Deshmukh for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10166 of 2013.
Shri P. K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Gauri Raghuwanshi for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5972 of 2015.
Shri R.S. Apte Senior Advocate a/w Ms. S.S. Bhende AGP for the state.
Mr. Rui Rodrigues for Mumbai University in WP Nos. 11392 of 2013, 7999 of 2013, 5452 of 2015, 4455 of 2015, 11840 of 2015.
Mr. Rui Rodrigues a/w Mr. Abhishek Tripathi for UGC.
Mr. Anil Singh, Additional Solicitor General a/w Mr. R.V. Desai Special Counsel, Ms. Neeta V. Masurkar, Mr. Sandesh Patil, Mr.P.S.Gujar, Mr.Dushant Kumar, Mr.N.R.Prajapati for Union of India.
Mr. Ramesh Dube Patil i/by Jay and Co. for Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada Aurangabad University for Respondent No. 5 in Writ Petition No. 5972 of 2015 and for Respondent No. 21 in Writ Petition No. 11840 of 2015.
Mr. P.B. Patil for Nagpur University.
Mr. I.M.Khairadi for Respondent No. 6 in Writ Petition No. 9687 of 2014, and for Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 10543 of 2014.
Mr. Amit Borkar for Shivaji University.
Mr. P.M.Palshikar for Mumbai UniversityRespondent No.5 in WP Nos. 1899 of 2015, 1901 of 2015, 8601 of 2015 and WP (ST.) 17682 of 2015.
Mr. Sanjay D.Thokde for Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 5591 of 2015.
Mr. Vipul K. Bodhare i/b Mr. A. M.Joshi for Respondent No. 6 in Writ Petition No. 2119 of 2015.
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND A. A. SAYED,JJ.
DATE : December 23, 2015
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.)
Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.
Background for a common Judgment
2By consent, heard finally specifically in view of the following order passed by Supreme Court dated 25 March 2015 in Civil Appeal No.10759/2013 – State of Maharashtra v. Asha Ramdas Bidkar, against the Judgment dated 182013 of Aurangabad Bench in Asha Ramdas Bidkar v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No.11477/2010):
“1On the taking up of Civil Appeal No.10760 of 2013 we have come to learn that several Respondents as well as other Lectures/Assistant Professors similarly placed who are vitally affected by the core issue which has now been canvassed before us have neither been impleaded nor have been heard by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. We are further informed that as on date there are over hundred Writ Petitions pending in the Principal Bench and the Benches at Nagpur and Aurangabad of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. It has been pointed out by the Learned Senior Counsel that Maharashtra Federation of University &
CollegeTeachersOrganisation,(MFUCTO), Respondent in Civil Appeal No.10759/2013, had filed a Writ Petition which is pending before the Principal Bench. This Association is also seeking to be heard in the proceedings before us.
2In these circumstances the course which commends itself to us is to stay the operation of the Impugned Order without, in any manner, causing any disadvantage to any of the parties who are the beneficiaries to the Impugned Judgment. We are staying the operation of the Impugned Judgment since several other Writ Petitions are also pending and Coordinate Benches would otherwise be bound to follow the previous decision or refer the conundrum or recommend to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute a Larger Bench, if the already articulated terms of the Coordinate Benches are found to be unacceptable. It is not controverted that Public Notice had not been given in respect of this litigation. Therefore, there is the need to stay the operation of the Impugned Order, so as to enable denovo consideration of the pending Writ Petition.
3Accordingly, we request Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay to constitute or nominate a Bench at the Principal Bench, to which all pending Writ Petitions should be transferred, and which Bench should forthwith take up the matters, in expedition, and decide all the Writ Petitions preferably within a period of six months from today. We also direct the State of Maharashtra to give wide publicity to the pendency of these Writ Petitions at the Principal Bench so that any person desirous of being heard may be able to do so, if that is found by it to be necessary and/or expedient.
4In view of the above, learned counsel for the Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 10760 of 2013 seeks leave to withdraw the Appeal with liberty granted to the Appellant to approach the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. This Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted as prayed for.
5We reiterate that the reason for which we have stayed the Impugned Order is to enable the Division Bench to look into the matters and decide them afresh. This does not preclude them from chartering the same course as in the Impugned Judgment, but that should be by way of a Judgment containing reasons for the conclusion.
6Mr. B. H. Marlapalle learned Senior Counsel for the State of Maharashtra assures the Court that no adverse action shall be taken against the Respondents in the Appeals before us. The above arrangement shall, needless to clarify, be subject to the final orders that will be passed in Civil Appeal No.10759 of 2013.
7Liberty is also granted to affected persons to seek in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay ad interim orders which may place them on parity with other Lecturers/Assistant Professors similarly placed.”
3The Supreme Court by this order, therefore, stayed the judgment dated 1.8.2013 in Asha Ramdas Bidkar (supra) and consequently also the following relief so granted by the Division Bench, which reads as under :
“
4) It is not in dispute on the part of the University Grants Commission or even by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that petitioners were appointed, granted approval and their appointments were made in conformity with the rules and regulations, except the passing of NET/SET examination.
5) Based on the scheme announced by UGC and adopted by the State Government, the lecturers in Senior Colleges who possess requisite qualification and qualifying duration of service are entitled for pecuniary benefit of higher scale of pay under the scheme called as “Career Advancement Scheme” (“CAS” for short). According to the Petitioners they do qualify for said benefit.
15) The stand taken by the State is wholly unjust and deserves to be rejected.
16) Therefore, now the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 ought not and cannot deny to the petitioners the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme.
17) This Court, therefore, allows the writ petition in terms of prayer clauses (A) and (B), with modification that interest on arrears shall carry interest @ 6% per annum, from the date when the payment became due.”
Due notices of hearing
4All the writ petitions, about 400 in number, have been transferred and tagged. This Special Bench as directed by the learned Chief Justice on 4 June 2015, has listed the matters for final hearing by consent.
5Due notices, as directed, have been given from time to time starting from 16.07.2015/20082015, to the concerned parties, through the Registry at the Principal Bench and the Benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Goa, apart from notices/intimations by the State including public notices, as stated, even in news papers also. All the timely orders are part of record.
Restricted to Broader issues/challenges
Conclusion
6By consent, all have proceeded with some of the Petitions, as lead Petitions instead of individual Petition for and against the broader common issues, revolving around relevancy/importance of National Eligibility Test (NET)/State Eligibility Test(SET) (for short, the “NET/SET”) qualification/examination as stated to be necessary and essential qualification for getting appointment and all the service benefits, including “Career Advancement Scheme” benefits (CAS) and related monetary entitlement including “the continuity of service”. The counter challenges are also raised against the UGC letters/resolutions granting the relaxation/exemption from such qualification and to the State Government Circular dated 27.06.2013 granting continuity of service and other benefits to nonNET/SET teachers/lecturers from the date of Resolution, subject to certain conditions. (The impugned Circular).
7Admittedly, some matters are pending even in Supreme Court. We have, therefore, without touching the issues so pending in the Supreme Court, but as directed and observed in the order so reproduced above, consciously proceeded to decide common connected issues so raised revolving around NET/SET qualification and its importance in service career of Lecturers/teachers, who have been duly appointed by the respective Universities, during the period 19.9.1991 to 3.4.2000, based upon then existing provisions of UGC Act and the Regulations, and State Government Circulars, so referred in the impugned Resolution/circular.
Petitioners/teachers/lecturers/Universities/Colleges and Respondents 8The Writ Petitions, by invoking Articles 14, 16, 21, 226 of the Constitution of India, are filed by individual Petitioners/teachers/lecturers and through their respective Associations and thereby various challenges are raised including the requirement and the mandate of NET/SET qualification for all the benefits including CAS, apart from continuity of service, in view of relaxation/exemption have been granted by the UGC in mass, on the Universities/teachers/lecturers representations made, individually and/or collectively/in mass.
9The counter Writ Petitions are filed by lecturers/teachers/persons who are holding the NET/SET certificate/qualification and those who have passed the NET/SET examination pursuant to the mandate so issued from time to time, by the RespondentsUniversity Grants Commission (UGC) / Universities and the State.They have raised various issues and resisted the claim of the above group of Petitioners who have not acquired the NET/SET qualification or passed such test. They have also challenged the Respondent's action of stated exemption/relaxation and the State's action of granting (who have not completed and/or obtained NET/SET qualification yet) continuity of service, all related benefits, by the impugned Resolution and related actions.
10The following NonAgriculture Universities in Maharashtra are also Respondents in these respective matters:
(1) University of Mumbai
(2) Savitribai Phule Pune University
(3) Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University
(4) Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University
(5) North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon
(6) Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada Univertsity, Nanded(7)Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, (7)Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad.
(8) Shivaji University Kolhapur
(9) Solapur University, Solapur
(10) SNDT Women's University, Mumbai
(11) Gondwana University, Gadchiroli (Est.2011)
11The colleges are having following streams of subjects:
(1) Arts
(2) Science
(3) Commerce
(4) Education
(5) Social work
(6) Law
(7) Music
(8) Journalism & Mass Communication.
The parties Affidavitrejoinderwritten submissions are filed.
12The contesting respective parties have filed affidavits/additional affidavits, rejoinders, synopsis and the written notes of Arguments.
Union of India/Central Government
The Union of India/Central Government is the supreme authority to deal with the every aspects of education policy and related issues, in India. All are bound by the orders/directions of the Central Government Government under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (The UGC Act). The Union of India has also filed an affidavit after directions issued by this High Court. It is submitted that no such affidavit was filed by the Union of India at earlier point of time opposing the contentions of the Petitioners including the action of UGC of granting stated relaxation from the qualification of NET/SET requirement. Union of India has opposed the grant of prayers in the Petitions of nonNET/SET lecturers.
Basic UGC Act provisions
14The Respondent/UGC is a statutory body established under the UGC Act. This Act makes provision for the coordination and determination and standard in Universities and for that purpose to establish University Grants Commission. The following are the relevant provisions. Section 2 deals with the definitions. Chapter III deals with the powers and functions of the Commission. Section 14 deals with the Consequences of failure of Universities to comply with recommendations of the Commission. The other relevant sections are 20, 22, 26 (1), (c ), (d), (e) and clauses (2) and (3). Same are reproduced as under :
“20 Directions by the Central Government.
(1) In the discharge of its functions under this Act, the Commission shall be guided by such directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes as may be given to it by the Central Government.
(2) If any dispute arises between the Central Government and the Commission as to whether a question is or is not a question of policy relating to national purposes, the decision of the Central Government shall be final.
22 Right to confer degrees.
(1) The right of conferring or granting degrees shall be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be a University under section 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.
(2) Save as provided in subsection (1), no person or authority shall confer, or grant, or hold himself or itself out as entitled to confer or grant, any degree.
(3) For the purposes of this section, degree means any such degree as may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by notification in the Official Gazette.
26 Power to make regulations.
(1) The Commission may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations consistent with this Act and the rule made thereunder,
(a) regulating the meetings of the Commission and the procedure for conducting business thereat; (b)regulating the manner in which and the purposes for which persons may be associated with the Commission under section 9;
(d) specifying the institutions or class of institutions which may be recognised by the Commission under clause (f) of section 2; (e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily berequired of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University having regard to the branch ofeducation in which he is expected to give instruction; (f)defining the minimum standards of instruction for the grant of any degree by any University; (g) regulating the maintenance of standards and the coordination of work or facilities in Universities.
(h) regulating the establishment of institutions referred to in clause (ccc) of section 12 and other matters relating to such institutions;]
(2) No regulation shall be made under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d)[ 17] [or clause (h) or clause (i) or clause (j)] of subsection (1) except with the previous approval of the Central Government.
(3) The power to make regulations conferred by this section [except clause (i) and clause (j) of subsection (1)] shall include the power to give retrospective effect from a date not earlier than the date of commencement of this Act, to the regulations or any of them but no retrospective effect shall be given to any regulation so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person to whom such regulation may be applicable.]”
Section 28 deals with the provision of laying of rules and regulations before Parliament.
Teachers/Lecturers without NET/SET TEST QUALIFICATION buthave been appointed by the Colleges/Institutions, affiliated to theUniversities.
15We are essentially concerned with teachers/lecturers who have not acquired NET/SET though appointed, between 19.09.1991 and 3.4.2000, in their respective affiliated degree colleges in the State of Maharashtra. We are not concerned with the teachers who have acquired NET/SET qualification even after their initial appointments, as they are entitled for all the benefits as announced by the Respondents. The teachers/lecturers who have acquired M.Phil and Ph.D. after their initial appointment are also entitled for the declared benefits.
Important dates and events, referring to the Regulations/Circulars16The common undisputed relevant dates and events interalia concerning progressive development of issue of minimum qualification of degree college, teachers/lecturers in Maharashtra, as relied/referred in of the lead Writ Petition No.2082/2013, are as under :
On 13.6.1983,U.G.C. Regulations concerning qualifications. Required qualifications: M. Phil. With Second Class Masters Degree and “Good Academic Record” was
dgm 87 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwnotified. notified.
17.6.1987Govt. of India Notification for implementation of 4[th ]Pay Commission. Pay Commission.
27.2.1989State Govt. adopts the Central Government Scheme w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Career Advancement Scheme introduced by this for the first time granting senior scale and selection grade to lecturers. M.Phil. as a qualification requirement done away with and the only qualification required for lecturers now was Masters with more than 55% marks. Universities asked to amend the Statutes. w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Career Advancement Scheme introduced by this for the first time granting senior scale and selection grade to lecturers. M.Phil. as a qualification requirement done away with and the only qualification required for lecturers now was Masters with more than 55% marks. Universities asked to amend the Statutes.
1989 Statutes framed by some of the Universities to adopt the above G.R. the above G.R.
19.9.1991U.G.C. Qualifications Regulation. In addition to Masters Degree with more than 55% marks prescribes for the first time NET/ SET as eligibility criteria for Degree College Lecturers. It provides that any relaxation can only be given by the University concerned with prior approval of the U.G.C. It further provides that if there is a failure to comply, Grants may be stopped. Under this Regulation even those having Ph.D. or M.Phil. are required to do NET/ SET. This Regulation was prospective i.e. for those lecturers who would be appointed after 19.9.1991 Masters Degree with more than 55% marks prescribes for the first time NET/ SET as eligibility criteria for Degree College Lecturers. It provides that any relaxation can only be given by the University concerned with prior approval of the U.G.C. It further provides that if there is a failure to comply, Grants may be stopped. Under this Regulation even those having Ph.D. or M.Phil. are required to do NET/ SET. This Regulation was prospective i.e. for those lecturers who would be appointed after 19.9.1991
23.10.1992State Govt.’s Resolution adopting the above U.G.C. Regulation Regulation 27.11.1992State Govt.’s Resolution superseding the October, 1992 Resolution and asking Universities to issue directives in accordance with the U.G.C. Regulation of 1991 1992 Resolution and asking Universities to issue directives in accordance with the U.G.C. Regulation of 1991
10.2.1993UGC Circular granting exemption from doing NET/
SET to those candidates who have (i) completed Ph.D. (ii) who will submit their Ph.D. thesis by 31.12.1993 and (iii) those candidates who have been awarded M.Phil. by 31.3.1991Ph.D. (ii) who will submit their Ph.D. thesis by 31.12.1993 and (iii) those candidates who have been awarded M.Phil. by 31.3.1991
6.1993U.G.C. provides that those candidates who have done M.Phil. upto 31.12.1992 or those who submit Ph.D. thesis upto 31.12.1993 are exempt from doing NET/ SET. UGC also requests Universities to amend statutes. done M.Phil. upto 31.12.1992 or those who submit Ph.D. thesis upto 31.12.1993 are exempt from doing NET/ SET. UGC also requests Universities to amend statutes.
10.12.1993State Govt.’s resolution adopting the U.G.C. Circular dated 10.2.1993 dated 10.2.1993
2.2.1994State Govt.’s letter to Universities that those lecturers appointed without NET/ SET can be continued upto 1.3.1994 but not to be continued after that. lecturers appointed without NET/ SET can be continued upto 1.3.1994 but not to be continued after that.
28.4.1994Govt. letter: Those teachers appointed without NET/ SET should be removed by 31.3.1996 SET should be removed by 31.3.1996
8.6.1994Govt. Resolution: Adopting the UGC Circular exempting those candidates who have done M.Phil upto 31.3.1992 from appearing for NET/ SET exempting those candidates who have done M.Phil upto 31.3.1992 from appearing for NET/ SET
14.7.1994Govt. G.R. appointing Pune University as Nodal Agency for conducting SET Exam, especially in regional language. Agency for conducting SET Exam, especially in regional language.
21.6.1995UGC 1[st] Amendment to 1991 Regulations. Those candidates who have submitted Ph.D. thesis or passed M.Phil. by 31.12.1993 are exempt from doing NET/ SET. Those candidates who have submitted Ph.D. thesis or passed M.Phil. by 31.12.1993 are exempt from doing NET/ SET.
22.12.1995State Govt. Resolution:(i) The date of 31.3.1996 for passing NET/ SET removed;(i) The date of 31.3.1996 for passing NET/ SET removed;
(ii) Those who have come into service after
19.9.1991 and have not completed NET/SET and have not passed M.Phil. by 31.12.1993 and have not submitted Ph.D. thesis by 31.12.1993 will be required to do NET/SET;have not passed M.Phil. by 31.12.1993 and have not submitted Ph.D. thesis by 31.12.1993 will be required to do NET/SET;
(III) Non NET/ SET teachers to be treated as ad hoc but their services not to be terminated on account of not having NET/ SET. However they will not get annual increment and their services upto they acquire NET/ SET will not be counted for senior scale/ selection grade.
22.5.1998Govt. Resolution allowing annual increments to those candidates who have not passed NET/ SET those candidates who have not passed NET/ SET
27.7.1998Central Govt.’s letter to all States concerning revision of pay scales for all Central Universities and Colleges. The letter states that 80% of additional expenditure for the period 1.1.1996 to 31.3.2000 will be provided by the Central Govt. The Central Govt. would pay provided entire scheme is adopted as a whole. Universities were asked to have required changes to their Statutes. revision of pay scales for all Central Universities and Colleges. The letter states that 80% of additional expenditure for the period 1.1.1996 to 31.3.2000 will be provided by the Central Govt. The Central Govt. would pay provided entire scheme is adopted as a whole. Universities were asked to have required changes to their Statutes.
24.12.1998UGC issues Notification on revision of Pay Scales and minimum qualifications for Universities and Colleges. NET/SET made mandatory. Relaxation can be given by Universities after prior approval of the UGC. Universities asked to amend Statutes. If conditions not fulfilled, grant may be withheld. minimum qualifications for Universities and Colleges. NET/SET made mandatory. Relaxation can be given by Universities after prior approval of the UGC. Universities asked to amend Statutes. If conditions not fulfilled, grant may be withheld.
11.12.1999Govt. Resolution adopting 5[th] Pay Commission from 1.1.1996 on the basis of the UGC Notification dated 24.12.1998. For the first time NET/ SET accepted as the required eligibility criteria Career Advancement continued with some modifications. 1.1.1996 on the basis of the UGC Notification dated 24.12.1998. For the first time NET/ SET accepted as the required eligibility criteria Career Advancement continued with some modifications.
Universities amend their statutes to implement the above scheme. For the first time NET/ SET is brought in as eligibility condition.
4.4.2000
UGC supersedes 1991 Regulation and 1998 Notification and brings in new Minimum Qualifications Regulations. It is now mentioned that relaxation can only be made by UGC in a particular subject where NET/ SET is not being conducted or enough candidates are not available and such relaxation would only be for a specified period. Universities were directed to amend their Statutes.
The Notification further provides that the Regulations concerning qualifications will not be applicable for those candidates who had the earlier requisite qualifications and who have been selected by the duly constituted selection committees prior to the enforcement of these Regulations. The consequence of non implementation could be that grants be stopped.
Required qualifications are M.Phil with NET/ SET but those candidates who have M.Phil. prior to 31.12.1993 or have submitted Ph. D. thesis prior to 31.12.1993 are exempt.
13.6.2000
State Govt. G.R. adopting the above Regulations. The G.R. further provided that after 4.4.2000 no candidate be appointed without NET/ SET and if appointed grants wont be paid.
3.8.2001
Statement of Minister of Education in the Assembly stating that since the Government and the Universities had not adopted the 1991 UGC Regulations through proper legal instruments number of lecturers/teachers were appointed till 11.12.1999 without NET/ SET.
18.10.2001
Govt. Resolution. It records that between 19.9.1991
and 11.12.1999 6000 non NET/ SET lecturers/teachers appointed. lecturers/teachers appointed.
The Govt. decided that these candidates will not be removed. But they will have to clear NET/ SET by December, 2003. If they don’t complete by December, 2003 they will not be removed till retirement but they will only get increments only and no senior scale, selection grade, etc. From the date on which they complete NET/ SET will held eligible for senior scale, etc. Those teachers/lecturers appointed after 11.12.1999 without NET/ SET should be removed before their probationary period comes to an end.
The G.R. further states that since the above NET/ SET qualifications have been brought in from 4.4.2000, after that date i.e. after 4.4.2000 no non NET/ SET candidates be appointed.
31.7.2002
U.G.C.’s 1[st] Amendment to 2000 qualifications Regulations. Exemption for those who have obtained M.Phil till 31.12.1993 to continue. But exemption to those who had submitted Ph.D. thesis by 31.12.1993 replaced now with exemption only to those who have submitted Ph. D. thesis by 31.12.1992. Besides it is mentioned that if these candidates fail to obtain Ph.D. they will be required to do NET/ SET.
December,2002
(onwards)Universities write to UGC stating that NET/ SET was made compulsory only after the University Statutes were amended (i.e. after December, 1999) and thus those appointed prior to that date should be treated as regularly appointed. made compulsory only after the University Statutes were amended (i.e. after December, 1999) and thus those appointed prior to that date should be treated as regularly appointed.
26.7.2004
Govt. of Assam adopts NET/ SET qualification only from 24.12.1998. from 24.12.1998.
9.12.2004UGC letter to Universities. When NET exemption is granted the same should be on the footing that the concerned teacher should acquire NET/ SET within 2 years of date of exemption. concerned teacher should acquire NET/ SET within 2 years of date of exemption.
14.6.2006U.G.C. carries out 2[nd] Amendment to 2000 Regulation and prescribes that candidates not having NET/ SET but having M.Phil. or Ph.D. will also be qualified as being appointed as degree college lecturers. Regulation and prescribes that candidates not having NET/ SET but having M.Phil. or Ph.D. will also be qualified as being appointed as degree college lecturers.
1.6.2009U.G.C. Regulations for award of M.Phil. and Ph.D. Degrees requiring passing of an entrance test to do M. Phil. Or Ph.D. Degrees requiring passing of an entrance test to do M. Phil. Or Ph.D.
30.6.2009
U.G.C. carries out 3[rd] Amendment to 2000 Regulations and prescribes that NET/ SET will be compulsorily required for recruitment of lecturers and the earlier exception of M. Phil. was being done away with. Those candidates not having NET/ SET but having Ph.D. in accordance with the 2009 regulations of U.G.C. will however be treated as qualified. Regulations and prescribes that NET/ SET will be compulsorily required for recruitment of lecturers and the earlier exception of M. Phil. was being done away with. Those candidates not having NET/ SET but having Ph.D. in accordance with the 2009 regulations of U.G.C. will however be treated as qualified.
This was litigated extensively and the Bombay High Court has passed number of judgments stating that those teachers appointed before 1.7.2009 with M. Phil and without NET/ SET will be treated as qualified. Court has passed number of judgments stating that those teachers appointed before 1.7.2009 with M. Phil and without NET/ SET will be treated as qualified.
Supreme Court has passed a Judgment which deals with teachers appointed after 30.6.2009 with M.Phil. and held that such teachers (even if they obtained M.Phil. prior to 30.6.2009) will not be held eligible if they do not have NET/ SET. with teachers appointed after 30.6.2009 with M.Phil. and held that such teachers (even if they obtained M.Phil. prior to 30.6.2009) will not be held eligible if they do not have NET/ SET.
12.8.2009 State Government adopts the 6[th] Pay Commission Scales and Career Advancement Scheme w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Qualifications required: Masters with 55% and NET/ SET. Designations changed to Asst. Professor, Associate Professor and Professor.Scales and Career Advancement Scheme w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Qualifications required: Masters with 55% and NET/ SET. Designations changed to Asst. Professor, Associate Professor and Professor.
26.8.2009Agreement between State and MFUCTO (Petitioner). (i) Revised Scales will also be applicable to non NET/ SET teachers approved by the University. They will be put in the lowest Scale. (ii) Decision of UGC concerning exemption from NET/ SET will be final. (i) Revised Scales will also be applicable to non NET/ SET teachers approved by the University. They will be put in the lowest Scale. (ii) Decision of UGC concerning exemption from NET/ SET will be final.
19.11.2009G.R. issued incorporating the above condition.
15.12.2009UGC replies to RTI query enclosing detailed correspondence with State concerning exemption from NET/ SET correspondence with State concerning exemption from NET/ SET
30.6.2010UGC Regulations for Minimum Qualifications and Revised Pay Scales as per 6[th] Pay. Masters with 55% and NET/ SET. Career Advancement. Revised Pay Scales as per 6[th] Pay. Masters with 55% and NET/ SET. Career Advancement.
2011Universities adopt the above Regulations of UGC.
10.6.2011MFUCTO’s (Petitioner’s) delegation to UGC asking that the entire service of Non NET/ SET teachers from 1991 to 4.4.2000 be counted for career advancement that the entire service of Non NET/ SET teachers from 1991 to 4.4.2000 be counted for career advancement 8.7.2011UGC’s Meeting. Those Non NET/ SET teachers appointed between 19.9.1991 and 3.4.2000 and whose applications are sent by Universities to UGC be approved on regular basis. appointed between 19.9.1991 and 3.4.2000 and whose applications are sent by Universities to UGC be approved on regular basis.
12.8.2011MFUCTO to U.G.C. asking clarification regarding from which date the placement be done for those appointed without NET SET between 19.9.1991 and 3.4.2000 Explanatory Note addressed by MFUCTO from which date the placement be done for those appointed without NET SET between 19.9.1991 and 3.4.2000 Explanatory Note addressed by MFUCTO
16.8.2011UGC’s letter to State Government communicating the decision dated 8.7.2011 the decision dated 8.7.2011
26.8.2011UGC’s letter to MFUCTO (Petitioner) clarifying that services for all purposes should be counted from the time they were regularly appointed. services for all purposes should be counted from the time they were regularly appointed.
15.3.2012UGC’s letter to the Petitioner stating that the actual date of effect for grant of exemption to a particular candidate shall be the date of exemption actually granted by the Universities to the concerned candidate appointed on “regular basis”. date of effect for grant of exemption to a particular candidate shall be the date of exemption actually granted by the Universities to the concerned candidate appointed on “regular basis”.
2.5.2012Meeting between Petitioner and the State officials took place. State agrees that the service rendered by the non NET/ SET teachers between 19.9.1991 and 3.4.2000 from the date of their appointment should be taken into consideration for all purposes. took place. State agrees that the service rendered by the non NET/ SET teachers between 19.9.1991 and 3.4.2000 from the date of their appointment should be taken into consideration for all purposes.
13.6.2013UGC minimum qualifications 2[nd]Amendment concerning Selection Process. concerning Selection Process.
27.6.2013Impugned G.R. of the State Government. Those appointed between 19.9.1991 and 23.10.1992 at no stage acquired NET/ SET. Those appointed between 19.9.1991 and 23.10.1992 at no stage acquired NET/ SET.
Services regularised of non NET/ SET candidates for 24.10.1992 to 3.4.2000 on following conditions:24.10.1992 to 3.4.2000 on following conditions:
(a) Lecturers/Teachers should have been appointed on regular basis;appointed on regular basis; (b)Appointed as per prescribed procedure;University should have approved their appointmentsUniversity should have approved their appointments
(c) University should have submitted their proposals for its approval. proposals for its approval.
Their services for all purposes will be counted from the date of the Government decision i.e. from 27.6.2013.
They will be covered by the 2005 Pension Scheme.
Common judgments cited by the parties
The learned counsel appearing for the parties have read and referred the various judgments including the following judgments:
1State of Maharashtra & ors. v. Asha Bidkar and ors.[1]
2Beena Inamdar v. University of Pune & ors.[2]
3University of Delhi v. Raj Singh & ors.[3]
4Suresh Patilkhede v. Chancellor, University of Maharashtra and ors.[4]
5T. P. George and ors v. State of Kerala & ors[5]
6Baburao Yadavrao Nareddiwar v. State of Maharashtra[6]
7Jagdish Prasad Sharma & ors v. State of Bihar & ors[7]
8Kalyani Mathivanan v. K. V. Jeyaraj & ors.[8]
1 Order dt.25.03.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 10759 of 2013 by Supreme CourtCourt 2 2012 (1) All MR 787
3 (1994) Supp (3) SCC 516
4 2012 (6) ALL MR 326
5 (1992) Supp. (3) SCC 191
6 (2002) 3 Mh. L. J. 515
9P. Suseela & ors v. University Grants Commission & ors.[9]
10Khandesh College Education Society v. Arjun Hari Narkhede[10]
11Dr. Mahesh Kulthe v. Union of India [11]
12Some judgments are referred in other paragraphs of this judgment.
=Relevant UGC Regulations and the State Circulars positiverepresentation about the mandate of the NET/SET qualification 18The following UGC Regulations are also read and referred.
The details and purpose of those Regulations are as under The detailed chart of some of them are part of record.
9 2015(8) SCC 129 Supreme Court Judgment dated 16.03.2015 in SLP (Civil) Nos.3602336032 of 2010(Civil) Nos.3602336032 of 2010
10 (2011) 7 SCC 172
11 Judgment dated 17.10.2013 in WP/10149/2010 (Aurangabad Bench)
Teachers/Lecturers are aware of requirement ofNET/SET qualification 19After going through the affidavit filed by the Respondents including their written submissions, it is clear that the State had directed all the Universities to apply the UGC Regulations 1991, by State Government Resolution dated 23.10.1992. It was made known to all, even by the Universities, at the relevant time, that “Qualifications for appointment to the teaching Posts 1. No person shall be appointed to teaching posts in the University or in any College affiliated to the University or Institution recounted by the University, if he/she does not fulfill required qualifications for appropriate subject, as prescribed by University Grants Commission/University from time to time.”.
20All other similar directions and communications were issued from time to time by the State, based upon the UGC's Regulations. There is no denial to these Circulars and/or any challenge raised at an appropriate time by the concerned parties. The State in the year 1994 itself by the Resolution had announced that the services of teachers/lecturers who do not acquire qualification of
dgm 102 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwNET/SET till 31.03.1996, should be considered as adhoc teachers, but they would not be terminated from the services with further rider that they would not be given the annual increments. It was specifically provided that their services would be considered for the purpose of CAS from the date on which they would clear the NET/SET. It was also made clear that those lecturers who had passed the NET/SET earlier would be considered as senior to others. There is nothing on record to show that the Respondents have made any representation and/or communicated to such teachers who have not acquired NET/SET that they would be treated equally with the lecturers/teachers who have acquired the NET/SET. The State positive representations, as recorded above, on the contrary, were otherwise. It is relevant to note that State Resolution dated 18.10.2001 was challenged by the lecturers who were appointed between the period 12.12.1999 to 3.4.2000 – 4.4.2000 to 12.6.2000 – 13.06.2000 to 13.10.2000. By a judgment of this Court in Vishwaprakash Laxman Sirsath v. State of Maharashtra,[12]it is observed that candidates who failed to obtain NET/SET qualification be continued to be unqualified and can be continued till December 12 2003 (2) Mh. L. J. 176
dgm 103 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw2003 and, therefore, clause 2(b) of Government Resolution dated 18.10.2001 was set aside. In the affidavit, the State has made the position very clear that the lecturers who do not clear the NET/SET would continue till their retirement with only increments without any other monetary benefits.
21A clarification issued by UGC dated 9.12.2004 had further provided that in case the relaxation/exemptions in question for the posts were granted in view of the special circumstances, the candidates would be required to clear NET/SET within a period of two years from the date of exemptions by the UGC. We have noted even the UGC's Resolution based upon the meetings held on 3rd and 4th September 2008, though, for recommending the cases for exemption, the time was further granted of four years to pass the said examination for acquiring the additional qualification. The UGC, by communication dated 12.11.2008, was directed by the Government of India not to grant such exemptions in future and notified the Regulation of 2009, accordingly. Therefore, we have considered in totality the purpose, object and the time to time representations/directives issued by the Respondents and specifically dgm 104 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwthe mandate of acquiring the NET/SET qualification in view of National Education Policy, apart from the additional benefits as announced by the State of Maharashtra. It is, therefore, clear that the Respondents, all the time have been intimating and informing to the concerned parties including to the adhoc and/or contract and/or temporary appointed lecturers/teachers, to grab the opportunity and acquire the eligibility qualification.
22The UGC's decision of 8.7.2011, of granting exemption/relaxation in the background, therefore, itself is not sufficient to grant the claim so raised by the Petitioners in view of the peculiarity of the circumstances so reproduced. Even the communication of UGC to the State is, in no way, sufficient to compel the State to grant CAS benefits and/or related benefits other than so announced. We are inclined to observe at this stage itself that in view of the reasons given in these judgments, the relaxation/exemption, even if granted by UGC, cannot be made applicable retrospectively and the relaxation, even if any, would be only to regularise the services subject to the restricted benefits so announced by the State Government from time to time.
Teachers/Lecturers were aware of requirement of NET/SET
23There is no material/data placed on record by such Petitioners and/or respective parties, to show that they were not aware of the basic requirement of qualification of NET/SET. Merely because the Petitioners were appointed in vacant posts, after due approval, in the circumstances so referred above, for want of nonavailability of NET/SET candidates during the above period, in no way, can be stated to be the reason to overlook the mandate of the NET/SET qualification, so insisted, through out even during the period in question.
24We are concerned not only with the appointments so made at the relevant time, but also concerned with its continuity or protection of such long services, and the benefits of the CAS which the Petitioners who have not acquired NET/SET qualification are claiming from the date of initial appointments and/or from the date of relaxation. No case is made out to grant such benefits by overlooking the facts and circumstances including about so many dgm 106 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwcandidates who have after initial appointment, acquired the NET/SET qualification even during this period. If there was no such requirement and/or insistence, there was no question of these candidates to acquire and or to proceed to acquire the qualification. Nonacquisition of NET/SET for whatever may be the reason, inspite of the mandate of qualification so declared by the UGC from time to time, disentitle them to claim such similar benefits, by treating themselves equally with the persons/candidates who have acquired the qualification of NET/SET. These are clearly two distinct, distinguishable and unequal classes, cannot be treated equally or on same level. These different classes with and/or without NET/SET need to be treated differently, including for the grant of benefits of CAS and other related aspects. The persons who have acquired NET/SET qualification are entitled for all the benefits as declared by the respective Respondents from the date of acquisition of qualifications.
UGC Regulations are binding to all.
25We are not accepting the submission that 1991 Regulations as issued under Section 26(1)(e) and, therefore, are not governed by
dgm 107 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwSection 20 of UGC Act. It is difficult to dissect Section 20 and read in isolation Section 26(1)(e) and/or (g). We have to consider the total scheme of the UGC Act and the intention behind the same of insisting upon the requisite clarification and/or test. Many times Universities used to appoint teachers/lecturers without NET/SET qualification and had made representation for post facto approval to the UGC. The clauses so read about the Regulations clearly provide for “prior approval” from UGC which admittedly was not obtained before appointment. In our view, the Petitioners wrongly relied upon University of Delhi (supra) for their submission that proviso of clause (2) of the Regulations of 19.09.1991 are directory in nature. The power to appoint by the Institutions/Colleges/University to select its teachers is not restricted. The requirement of such teachers to have the qualification, and as in fact many teachers/lecturers have acquired such qualification, that itself is sufficient to reject the contention of the Petitioners to treat the condition and/or requirements of the Regulations being recommendatory. The UGC Regulations dated 4.4.2000 cannot be used and utilised by the Petitioners to say that NET/SET qualification requirement held to be mandatory, subsequently.
Teacher with & without NET/SET/TEST/QUALIFICATION and theirstated equal rights?
26We are also concerned with the categories of the teachers who were granted individual and/or common relaxation by the UGC. The teachers who acquired the required qualification are getting their CAS and other benefits from the date of acquisition of this qualification. The teachers who have not acquired the qualification are also claiming the similar benefits from the date of their initial appointments. The teachers from private aided colleges and/or from Government colleges and/or from unaided colleges are also involved in the matter.
27Various schemes, regulations, framed by UGC from time to time are read and referred by the counsel. The counsel have read and referred the provisions of respective University Acts. There is no serious dispute with regard to these provisions of the respective Universities so referred, including their power to permit to appoint teacher/staff as and when necessary, but by following the due procedure of law and taking note of declared and prescribed dgm 109 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwqualification for different classes of teachers including additional qualifications so prescribed by the UGC.
28The respective Universities have also filed their affidavits basically supporting the Petitioners' cases who have not completed the NET/SET qualification or who have not acquired the NET/SET qualification. The Universities in their affidavits submitted that they have permitted to appoint these teachers by following the due procedure of law, but in view of exigency and urgency for want of teacher at the relevant time, without NET/SET qualification, as no much qualified candidates were available, during the period between 19.09.1991 to 3.4.2000. Admittedly, the Universities, based upon the Rules, Regulations and Scheme so announced including by the State through the various Associations had made the representations to the UGC to grant the relaxation. The parties have read and referred those representations. We have noted that the applications/representations for relaxation were forwarded by the Universities on behalf of such persons who have not acquired NET/SET qualification but are appointed at the respective posts. Those relaxation applications were considered and decided by the dgm 110 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwUGC from time to time on the respective applications and granted relaxation from the date so specified. Such Petitioners are also, though not acquired NET/SET qualification claiming all the CAS benefits from the date of their respective appointments or at least from the date of relaxation, along with the teachers/persons who have acquired the NET/SET.
29The State has filed affidavit dated 1 October 2015, opposing such Petitioner's claim in every aspect. However, considering the facts and circumstances at the relevant time, basically between the period from 19.9.1991 and 3.4.2000, as there were no fully eligible candidates available and there was urgent requirement of teachers to be appointed for the respective vacant posts, so that the students education should continue, the State had been insisting for many years, and extended the period, so as to enable such teachers to acquire qualification of NET/SET. The teachers appointed between this period, have been extended the limited benefits by the State Circulars, in the interest of justice and considering the long continuity in service. [The said State action, therefore, is also challenged by the persons who have acquired the NET/SET qualification already. ] We dgm 111 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwfind nothing wrong with the Circular as it is in the interest of all the concerned in above background and as it is within the power and jurisdiction of the State when it comes to regularisation of service of such teachers, including grant of continuity with the limited monetary benefits, except CAS and related aspects.
Teachers duly appointed, but without NET/SET qualification regularisation
30The appointments were made by the duly constituted Selection Committee as per the respective University Statutes including Act, Ordinance, Statutes etc. (The University Statutes). The appointments were against the clear vacant posts and taking note of constitutional reservation at the time of appointments as at the relevant time, NET/SET qualified candidates were not available sufficiently. It is stated that in some cases, in the advertisement, there was no reference of NET/SET qualification. All these Petitioners have been continuing in service without any break and receiving the pay scale and annual increments regularly. They have been claiming permanency after completion of probation. The State ultimately has granted the same by impugned Circular/Resolution dated 27 June dgm 112 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw2013.
NET/SET qualification compulsory ?
31We are not inclined to accept the contention that there was no provision either in the Statute and/or the Act making NET/SET qualification compulsory. The fact that more than two lac persons/teachers/professions/candidates have already acquired NET/SET even some of them during the period 19.09.1991 to 3.4.2000, itself sufficient to deny the contention of such Petitioners. The sending of proposal for exemption/relaxation for the post from NET/SET qualification by the Universities/Colleges, after going through the respective proposals, in most of the matters, show that it was referring to the initial appointments so made at the relevant time for want of qualified NET/SET candidates. The Regulations so referred above, including of the year 1991, itself provide that the prior approval for the relaxation would be obtained by the Universities/Colleges before appointment. It was also with intention for providing them time for acquiring NET/SET qualification. After reading the Regulations and the State Circular so recorded above and after hearing both the parties, we find no substance in the Petitioner's submission that this relaxation for the post to the Universities so granted was for all the purposes as claimed, even for the CAS from the date of initial appointments and/or from the date of exemption granted by the Universities.
PostProposal by the Universities for “relaxation” or “exemption”
32The proposal submitted on behalf of the Petitioners for relaxation for the respective post of Universities itself contemplates the existence of binding condition of acquiring NET/SET qualification as announced and mandated by the UGC from time to time.
33The Supreme Court in University of Delhi (supra) dealt with the UGC Regulations notified on 19.09.1991 for appointment of teaching staff of University and Institutions affiliated to it, whereby it was necessary to appoint/select lecturers in accordance with the said Regulations. However, referring to first proviso to clause 2 of the Regulations, it is observed that the clause permits relaxation in the prescribed qualification by a University, with the prior approval of the UGC. This Regulation is made under the provisions of Section 26(1)(e) which defines the qualification that are “ordinarily” and not
dgm 114 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw“invariably” required of a lecturer. These provisions cannot be read in isolation. The consequences of failure of University to comply with the recommendations made, are also dealt with by referring to Section 14 of the UGC Act. It is also noted that the selection process so followed before selecting the lecturers by written tests and interviews or either the University's autonomy, was not entrenched upon by the Regulation. The power of UGC of relaxing the requirement of clearing the NET/SET, therefore, has been recognized by the Supreme Court in University of Delhi (supra). The Supreme Court has ultimately concluded as under:
“24…..... As analysed above, therefore, the Delhi University may appoint as a lecturer in itself and its affiliated colleges one who has cleared the test prescribed by the said Regulations; or it may seek prior approval for the relaxation of this requirement in a specific case; or it may appoint as lecturer one who does not meet this requirement without having first obtained the UGC's approval, in which event it would, if it failed to show cause for its failure to abide by the said Regulations to the satisfaction of the UGC, forfeit its grant from the UGC. If, however, it did show cause to the satisfaction of the UGC, it not only would not forfeit its grant but the appointment made without obtaining the UGC's prior approval would stand regularised.”University may appoint as a lecturer in itself and its affiliated colleges one who has cleared the test prescribed by the said Regulations; or it may seek prior approval for the relaxation of this requirement in a specific case; or it may appoint as lecturer one who does not meet this requirement without having first obtained the UGC's approval, in which event it would, if it failed to show cause for its failure to abide by the said Regulations to the satisfaction of the UGC, forfeit its grant from the UGC. If, however, it did show cause to the satisfaction of the UGC, it not only would not forfeit its grant but the appointment made without obtaining the UGC's prior approval would stand regularised.”
34In present matters also, we are inclined to observe that the provision was specifically made of relaxation. The UGC, at relevant dgm 115 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwtime, was empowered to grant relaxation after considering the various factors and subject to their satisfaction, as appointments were required to be made by the University/colleges of such lecturers, without required qualification, but it was subject to prior approval. Once the approval is granted, the appointments made even without obtaining the UGC's prior approval, would stand regularised but for limited purpose.
Only “regularisation” or “continuity of service to NonNET/SET and related State pay scale and increments
35We have also noted that the proposals submitted by Universities/Petitioners though scrutinized by the expert committee of UGC and thereafter placed before the Exemption Committee and vide order dated 23 March 2010, communicated its decision granting the exemption to some Petitioners from passing the NET/SET qualification is required to be read and to mean for the basic appointments so made at the relevant time during this period, and not for benefits of CAS from the date of initial appointments so claimed and/or from the date of exemption granted by the UGC. The relaxation so granted after so many years, after repeated representations made by the concerned dgm 116 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwparties, in no way, read to mean that such nonNET/SET persons be treated equally with the candidates who posses the NET/SET qualification.
36The regularisation of service from the date of initial appointment, in our view, also cannot be disturbed as they have admittedly have been working during the situation where NET/SET candidates were not available. The State is required to strike the balance in the interest of all the concerned, being the paying authority of salary and all other related benefits to such lecturers/teachers. This is also in view of the State's obligations to provide and facilitate all kinds of education to all the concerned. The State's extension to grant them annual increments and benefits of Fifth and Sixth Pay Commission, in the background and the future related benefits, if occasion comes we are not inclined to disturb the same. There is no question of granting benefit of seniority from the date of their initial appointments and/or from the date of their relaxation or confirmation, as prayed. The protection of service of Petitioners by these exemptions/relaxations cannot be equated with the persons who got other benefits including CAS as they have passed the NET/SET
dgm 117 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwexamination. The persons appointed with due qualification need to be respected in every aspect. The reliance so placed on Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and ors,[13] is also of no assistance as the basic requisite NET/SET qualification throughout was the essential condition of such service, which admittedly was not acquired by such Petitioners. There is no legal right/entitlement so claimed by the Petitioners for want of qualification itself.
Role of UGC to grant approval to exemption or relaxation 37It is relevant to note that all the parties including the teachers/candidates at the relevant time, during these periods, were fully aware of the State Government Resolutions dated 12.12.1995, 12.05.1998, 26.08.1999, 18.10.2001, whereby protective reliefs and the monetary benefits have been extended to nonNET/SET teachers. The condition of acquisition of NET/SET was never specifically waived by the State for the reliefs so claimed in the Petitions. Every such teachers have accepted the benefits. There is no issue that 13(1990) 2 SCC 715
dgm 118 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwnonNET/SET teachers, inspite of no requisite qualification of NET/SET have been getting pay Commission's scale, HRA, Leave Travel Allowance, DA, TA and all other related benefits, including increments and pension and gratuity.
38Communication dated 26.08.2011 between the State and the Petitioner after the Meeting held with th Chief Minister on 2.5.2012 would not prevail over the position of law and the Circulars/Resolutions/Regulations, so issued from time to time. The role of UGC is therefore restricted by declaring required qualification for the requisite posts. This power, in no way, can be extended to compel the State to pay the salary and/or requisite benefits. The State's power, therefore, to grant the salary and related benefits based upon their constitutional obligation and the need of the time, including their power to grant the benefits to the NET/SET acquired candidates and/or deny the benefits who have not acquired such qualification in no way can be stated to be unjust or contrary to any provisions. Such power is not arbitrary and/or discriminatory.
State Adoption of Regulations
The submission, based upon the case of Kalyani (supra)
dgm 119 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwreferring to paragraphs 56 to 62 that the UGC's Regulations are not applicable unless they are adopted, in the facts and circumstances, are liable to be rejected as the Petitioners/Respondents have been acting upon the same since long and proceeded accordingly since so many years. Therefore, the submission that UGC Regulations do not become automatically binding on the State Government or the Universities is also incorrect. The mandate of requisite qualification and insistence for the appointments based upon the same itself shows that such qualification so announced from time to time and as insisted upon has a binding force for all the concerned.
40Both the parties have read and relied also upon Kalyani (supra), wherein the Apex Court has dealt with the provisions of Articles 246, 254 of Constitution of India, Schedule VII List I, Entry 66 and List III Entry 25, read with the provisions of UGC Act and the UGC Regulations 2010 and University framed Statues, Ordinances, Rules, Regulations and Norms and held as under :
“27From the aforesaid provisions, we find that the University Grants Commission has been established for the determination of standard of Universities, promotion and coordination of University education, for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities, for University Grants Commission has been established for the determination of standard of Universities, promotion and coordination of University education, for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities, for
defining the qualifications regarding the teaching staff of the University, maintenance of standards etc. For the purpose of performing its functions under the UGC Act (see Section 12) like defining the qualifications and standard that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed in the Universities [see Section 26(1)(e)(g)] UGC is empowered to frame regulations. It is only when both the Houses of the Parliament approve the regulation, the same can be given effect. Thus, we hold that the U.G.C. Regulations though a subordinate legislation has binding effect on the Universities to which it applies; and consequence of failure of the University to comply with the recommendations of the Commission, the UGC may withhold the grants to the university made out of the Fund of the Commission. (See Section 14)
62In view of the discussion as made above, we hold:
62.1 To the extent the State Legislation is in conflict with Central Legislation including subordinate legislation made by the Central Legislation under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List shall be repugnant to the Central Legislation and would be inoperative.
62.2 The UGC Regulations being passed by both the Houses of Parliament, though a subordinate legislation has binding effect on the Universities to which it applies.
62.3 UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory to teachers and other academic staff in all the Central Universities and Colleges thereunder and the Institutions deemed to be Universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC.
62.4 UGC Regulations, 2010 is directory for the Universities, Colleges and other higher educational institutions under the purview of the State Legislation as the matter has been left to the State Government to adopt and implement the Scheme. Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010 is partly mandatory and is partly directory.
62.5 UGC Regulations, 2010 having not adopted by the State Tamil Nadu, the question of conflict between State Legislation and Statutes framed under Central Legislation does not arise. Once it is adopted by the State Government, the State Legislation to be amended appropriately. In such case also there shall be no conflict between the State Legislation and the Central Legislation.”
This decision of 11.03.2015 based upon the events and law of the year 20112012. We are not concerned with the appointments made after 3/4/2000. This judgment is also after all the earlier High Court judgments referred and cited by the parties.
41In these present matters, the State by the impugned Circular, itself has endorsed the adoption of Regulations in 1992 and therefore, granted benefits accordingly, subject to conditions so mentioned. All the parties have been acting upon the same since 1991/1992 to 2000, now cannot be permitted to challenge the same. The submission of nonNET/SET Petitioners are self contradictory. They have been enjoying all the State benefits so declared from time to time, now claiming equality with the candidates who have possessed the NET/SET qualification. They are bound by those Policies and the conditions.
42The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners who have not acquired the NET/SET qualification that the UGC Regulations dated 19.9.1991 are binding only if adopted by the State and/or Universities and/or not automatically binding is incorrect and unacceptable. There is no justification coming on record and/or placed on record why others have completed and acquired NET/SET qualification even during this period. The adoption arguments by the State is after thought and is contrary to the record and the conduct of the Petitioners.
43We have also noted that there is no specific provision under the UGC Act and/or in the Maharashtra Universities Act which requires that UGC Regulations are required to be adopted by the State Government and/or by University. Neither it is supported by any judgments. In some cases, Pune University, on 28.08.1986 have adopted the UGC Regulations and so also by the State Government Resolution dated 27.02.1989.
44Reliance is also placed in T. P. George v. State of Kerala (supra) to support their contentions that UGC Regulations do not bind automatically, unless it is specifically adopted by a Statute/University. The adoption of Universities in 2000, even if any, would not affect the rights of such appointee, without NET/SET qualification during the period 1991 to 2000. This judgment is of no assistance to the nonNET/SET Petitioners, specifically in view of the recent Supreme Court judgments in “Suseela”, “Kalyani” and theorder in “Asha Bidkar” (supra),and the provisions of mandate so reinforced by giving importance to the qualification prescribed by the UGC in the interest of excellence of Education. There was no question to keep the relaxation issues pending for so many years by the UGC, though the appointments were made without any prior relaxation/approval of requisite qualifications for such period.
Post or prior “relaxation” by UGC
45After going through the documents so placed on record, including the basic qualification and regulations, we have noted that dgm 124 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwthe word “prior relaxation” was used for the initial appointment on the respective post of lecturer/professor. There is nothing mentioned and/or pointed out that the stated relaxation was granted prior to or on the date of their appointments. On the contrary, the documents and the communication of UGC shows that the relaxation to the posts were granted, after 8 to 15 years from the date of respective dates of appointments so mentioned in the communication by the UGC.
UGC cut off date 3.4.2000 to grant of relaxation
46We are not inclined to accept the case that the UGC's cut off date i.e. 342000 was the last date for granting relaxation as that was the date from which the UGC's minimum qualification came into effect. We are not inclined to accept the case that NET/SET qualification became mandatory only from 4.4.2000. We are not inclined to accept that the qualification criteria was never a criteria for CAS. It means the Petitioners appointments were treated adhoc, by the State, for the purpose of CAS. The late relaxation, in the circumstances, in view of mandate so declared, even if any, cannot be sufficient to treat them equally with candidates who have acquired NET/SET in time.
University Statute cannot be read in isolation 47The provisions of earlier University Acts, in no way, assist the Petitioners to claim these benefits, in view of clear declaration from time to time by the State Circulars, (State affidavit) and UGC Regulations 1991 (UGC Affidavit). All the concerned were aware of the requirement of NET/SET/TEST qualifications. Such eligibility/mandatory tests, which affects the selection and appointments, cannot be overlooked merely because in in 11/7/2009 (UGC) Notification specifically made NET/SET eligibility criteria as mandatory. This in no way can be read to mean it was earlier recommendatory, and not binding.
48We are not willing to accept the submissions so made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that 1991 Regulations of UGC are not mandatory referring to cases of Raj Singh, Beena Inamdar and Jagdish Prasad (supra). The effect of Regulation of UGC and its requirement, considering the aims and objects of UGC Act and Regulations so framed cannot be overlooked as the requisite qualification is for the excellence of education.
49The provisions of the University Statutes cannot be read in isolation without reading the qualification so prescribed by the UGC which binds all the concerned, including the University, College and Teachers. The University, the State Government, therefore, are under obligation to follow and take note of qualifications so declared for appointments and for grant of benefits so announced. The judgment in Khandesh (supra) is of no assistance. The judgment of Supreme Court in Khandesh (supra) dealt with the aspect of Earned Leave and encashment of unutilised Earned Leave on the retirement of teachers/lecturers who were working in aided private college, therefore, held not to be the Government servants. This judgment is also of no assistance to the Petitioners.
'Union of Indias stand – UGC has no power to grant exemption 50The learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India referring to the provisions of UGC Act and the affidavit so filed, for the first time in this Petition, submitted that the UGC has no
dgm 127 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwpower to grant any exemption for want of specific exemption provisions under the UGC Act. The statement is made that such arguments are not made even before the Supreme Court and/or in pending matters. This Court has, as recorded, in many matters earlier, directed UGC to consider/decide the proposal of granting exemption or relaxation. The UGC, as recorded, apart from other and/or even for want of provision, as contended, but pursuant to orders passed by this Court, have implemented the orders and granted the same. The learned counsel for the UGC stated that the UGC nowhere received any such adverse communication earlier at any point of time, except the affidavit in question, for the first time in this Court. We have noted that the UGC after granting the relaxation in the background, in the year 2011, has forwarded the communication to the Union of India for appropriate approval. Admittedly, there was no refusal or return communication received at the relevant time. After reading the provisions and the regulations so referred, even assuming for want of specific provisions in law about the power of UGC to grant “exemption”, the power of “relaxation” in qualification, including of NET/SET for the appointment, is clearly provided in UGC Regulations since 1991 itself. Mere use of the word “exemption” that itself cannot dgm 128 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwbe read to mean that the UGC has no power of “relaxation” in qualification. The Rules/Regulations specifically prescribe such power.
51We are not inclined to accept the submission of Union of India/Central Government, to extent that all the exemptions granted by UGC are without jurisdiction. The learned counsel appearing for the UGC has read and referred various regulations and Circulars/Resolutions and the communication whereby they have admittedly proceeded and granted relaxation/exemption.
52The power to relax, in our view, was for the basic appointment or for the post and not for any other State benefits. The challenge of the regulations not placing before the House of Parliament is also unacceptable, at this stage of proceedings.
53The nonNET/SET candidates cannot compare themselves with the persons who acquired Ph.D and M. Phil upto a particular date. The relaxation so granted and as upheld in University Grants Commission v. Sadhna Chaudhari,[14] cannot be the reason and is of no assistance to grant the relief so prayed as facts and circumstances are different.
54The Supreme Court judgment dated 16.03.2015 in P.Suseela (supra), is based upon the events between the period 2011 to 2015 and the related UGC Rules/Regulations. This judgment is arising out of a large number of Appeals of four High Courts, including of Delhi High Court, dated 6 December 2010, whereby, the constitutional validity of the UGC Regulations 2009 under which NET/SET held to be the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment andappointmentsoflecturers/teachersin University/Colleges/Institutions. The law so declared reiterating the mandate of provisions of UGC Act and the Regulations made thereunder, including the interpretations of Sections 20 and 26(1)(e) are relevant considering the issues so raised by the Petitioners.
55The Apex Court in P. Suseela (supra), after considering the rival contentions, decided the the issues about “the legitimate expectation” and “vested rights if not eligible” in the matter of appointments so also the importance of the directions issued under
Section 20 of the UGC Act and observed as under:
“12…..These directions are not only made in exercise of powers under Section 20 of the Act but are made to provide for coordination and determination of standards which lies at the very core of the UGC Act. It is clear, therefore, that any regulation made under Section 26 must conform to directions issued by the Central Government under Section 20 of the Act.
13….........It is clear, therefore, that Section 26(2) would not stand in the way of the directions issued in the present case by the Central Government to the Commission.
15Similar is the case on facts here. A vested right would arise only if any of the appellants before us had actually been appointed to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professors. Till that date, there is no vested right in any of the appellants. At the highest, the appellants could only contend that they have a right to be considered for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor. This right is always subject to minimum eligibility conditions, and till such time as the appellants are appointed, different conditions may be laid down at different times. Merely because an additional eligibility condition in the form of a NET test is laid down, it does not mean that any vested right of the appellants is affected, nor does it mean that the regulation laying down such minimum eligibility condition would be retrospective in operation. Such condition would only be prospective as it would apply only at the stage of appointment. It is clear, therefore, that the contentions of the private appellants before us must fail.
17The arguments based on Article 14 equally have to be rejected. It is clear that the object of the directions of the Central Government read with the UGC regulations of 2009/2010 are to maintain excellence in standards of higher education. Keeping this object in mind, a minimum eligibility condition of passing the natio0nal eligibility test is laid down. True, there may have been exemptions laid down by the UGC in the past, but the Central Government now as a matter of policy feels that any exemption would compromise the excellence of teaching standards in Universities/Colleges/Institutions governed by the UGC. Obviously, there is nothing arbitrary or discriminatory in this – in fact it is a core function of the UGC to see that such standards do not get diluted.
22We have already pointed out how the directions of the Central Government under Section 20 of the UGC Act pertain to questions of policy relating to national purpose. We have also pointed out that the regulation making power is subservient to directions issued under Section 20 of the Act. The fact that the UGC is an expert body does not take the matter any further. The UGC Act contemplates that such expert body will have to act in accordance with directions issued by the Central Government.”
56The Supreme Court in Suseela's case (supra) has declared that these Central Government directions are prospective and would apply to the appointments made after 2009 regulations. Everybody needs to follow these directions issued under Section 20 of UGC Act. However, in the present facts and circumstances, as we are concerned with the appointments so made of teachers during the year 1991 to 2000 and in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in many matters including Mohan Kulte (supra) the power of relaxation of UGC of the persons appointed between 1991 and 2000 would not be affected by this direction. The High Court judgments have attained the finality.
High Court's orders to consider proposal for exemptions/relaxations.
57The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners in support of their submissions have also read and referred judgment of this Court apart from the judgment of Supreme Court so referred above,includingjudgmentdated20.02.2002in Vishwaprakash (supra) whereby directions were issued for sending the cases of Petitioners to UGC from colleges through the concerned Universities based on the provisions of 19.09.1991 and 4.4.2000 Regulations for claiming relaxations/exemptions. In another matter, by order dated 18.04.2002, further time was granted to the college/University and UGC to complete the process of exemption. This order, as stated earlier, remained intact as there was no further challenge raised to the same. On the contrary, the UGC, as recorded earlier, has already, though late, acted upon the same.
The relaxation, if any, that itself no reason to claim equal benefits.
58The relaxation, even if, granted pursuant to the orders so referred above and/or otherwise that itself, in our view, cannot be the foundation and/or reason to act against the said policy decision of State Government not to grant the said CAS benefits to such nonNET/SET teachers appointed between 19.09.1991 and 3.4.2000.
59The order passed by the Division Bench dated 20.04.2011 in Writ Petition No. 4908 of 2010 (Smt. Meenakshi Ajay Jumle & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) was on a foundation of granting them CAS benefits in senior scale and selection grade as NET/SET exemptions were granted by UGC/University and by counting their past service from the first date of regular appointment. The direction was issued to UGC to communicate to the State the date on which the exemption became effective as per Notification dated 5.11.2008. The State Government, however, considering the totality of the matter has now taken the policy decision to grant benefit from the date of Notification which cannot be faulted. This is also for the reason that nonNET/SET teachers/lecturers are different than the teachers who possess the NET/SET qualification. They are not equal as recorded dgm 134 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwabove. We are not inclined to issue direction to cover all the teachers appointed during the period from 19.09.1991 to 3.4.2000 whose representations for approval were sent to the UGC for such benefits. The other judgments so cited by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners are also of no assistance as those facts and circumstances are different.
60The reliance on judgment dated 20.10.2010 (Aurangabad Bench) in Writ Petition No.357 of 2010, Atul Suresh Patil & Ors. Vs.State of Maharashtra & Ors., was in the background of challenge to the UGC Notification dated 11.07.2009 and as stated to be recorded to act prospectively, so far as the necessity to have NET/SET qualification in the cases of M. Phil and Ph. D degree holders. Therefore, it was observed that for those candidates qualification of NET/SET was not compulsory. This judgment, therefore, is also of no assistance.
61In Dr. Mahesh Kulthe, the Division Bench based upon Asha Bidkar vs. State of Maharashtra[15], including the other judgments so referred, has quashed and set aside the communication 2014 (1) All MR 116
dgm 135 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwreferring to the pay fixation of the lecturers taking into account the dates of their appointments and gave them benefit of CAS. The fact that the Supreme Court has stayed the judgment (Asha Bidkar) and directed to decide the issue afresh therefore, also the judgment of Dr. Mahesh Kulthe (supra), in our view, is of no assistance except the fact that the UGC has acted upon the same, as even accepted by the counsel for the UGC. We are not inclined to accept the case that the services of such teachers should be counted from the date of their regular appointment.
62A Division Bench judgment dated 20.04.2011 in Writ Petition No.4909 of 2010 Tikaram Dewaji Kose and ors v. State of Maharashtra and ors., (Nagpur Bench) directed the UGC to communicate to the State Government the date when such relaxation/exemption become effective. Accordingly it was provided. 63All the appointments made during the period 1991 to 2000 have been protected by the State. Therefore, the decision in Sudhir Sharadrao Hunge v. State of Maharashtra, [16] and/or judgment 162010 (4) Mh. L. J. 572
dgm 136 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwin Atul Suresh Patil v. The State of Maharashtra[17] will not carry the Petitioners case further to claim CAS benefits and/or to declare Clauses 15/16 of impugned State Resolution bad in law.
64The State's earlier affidavit, where willingness was expressed to provide CAS benefits, after stated relaxation by the UGC, even if any, in view of the policy decision so taken, being empowered to do so and now issued the impugned Resolution/circular by giving restricted benefits, subject to conditions, in our view, is just and proper.
65A Division Bench of this Court in Suresh Patilkhede(supra) on 11 May 2012, in a Public Interest Litigation, while dealing with the UGC Act, Sections 12(d), 12(j) and 26(1) and Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in University and Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Education) Regulations 2010, held that Regulation 7.3.0, is recommendatory in nature. We are not concerned with the said Regulation. However, 17Judgment dt. 20 October 2010 in WP/357/2010 Aurangabad Bench dgm 137 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwconsidering the recent Supreme Court judgments so referred above in P. Suseela, Kalyani Mathivanan and the order in State of Maharashtra v. Asha Bidkar (supra), this judgment is of no assistance to the Petitioners to support their case.
66In Baburao (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, dealt with the right of teacher which flow from the Statute framed by the University including the issue of age of superannuations. This judgment on facts is distinguishable. We are not dealing with the issue of superannuation in the present matters.
UGC power of relaxation or exemption
The basic events as stated by the learned counsel appearing for UGC are as under, which they have filed along with their submissions and as per the affidavit filed in the present Petition and also before the Supreme Court of India in support of their contention. The stand taken accordingly, while granting the stated relaxation for the post at the relevant time :
68The undisputed events and the contentions revolving around those letters mentioned in above para, by the UGC, have crystalized the situation so far as grant of exemption/relaxation by the UGC for the teachers appointed between 1991 to 2000. We, for reasons so recorded above, therefore, accept the contentions of the UGC so far as actual grant of relaxation, from time to time.
The affidavit filed by UGC in various matters also accept
dgm 141 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwthat the direction of the Central Government do not apply to the appointments in question and the applications for approval made accordingly. The submission, therefore, now raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Central Government/Union of India about these regulations prescribing relaxation for the persons who are appointed during 1991 and 2000 is therefore unacceptable. The power to grant such relaxation for the post to the UGC to nonNET/SET teachers appointed during 1991 and 2000 for the purposes of regularising the appointments, therefore, need to be accepted. The UGC resolution in the meeting dated 8.7.2011 to grant approval, in State of Maharashtra, where Universities have granted exemption from requirement of NET, based upon 1991 and 1998 is not against the Supreme Court's decisions. The Central Government and the State are not accepting the stated exemption effect as sought to be contended by the nonNET/SET Petitioners. Any decision even of UGC, if contrary to the clear provisions, it will not be given effect to, is the case of Union of India and as that of the State also. Merely because the counting of past service is necessary as per UGC Regulations, the State policy to regularise such services from the date of resolution, cannot be used against the State for CAS claim.
70We are inclined to accept the following contentions of the State (Respondents 1 and 2) filed through affidavit dated 1 October 2015 in Writ Petition No.2082 of 2013 which reads as under:
“29I further say that under the provision of Section 8 of Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, the University is not empowered to revise pay, allowance, other benefits etc to teachers, employees, grant any special pay, allowance or other extra remuneration or any benefits having financial implications on State Government. Thus, the university cannot take any decision related to matters which has financial implications, without prior permission of the State Government or unless and until State Government accepts it. I further say and submit that it is thus clear that the services of concerned teachers who did not fulfill qualification as per UGC Regulation, 1991 could not have been considered for any benefits, till the G.R. Dated 27.06.2013. I say that, from the date of 27.06.2013 State Government has accepted financial responsibility of the NonNET/SET teachers appointed during the period of 19.09.1991 to 03.04.2000. However, the impugned G.R has been issued sympathetically considering situation which has been arisen out of large scale irregular appointments, hence, the concerned teachers do not acquire any right of claiming the benefits from date of appointments or any earlier date than prescribed in the impugned G.R. Thus it is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble High Court that the submission of the petitioners regarding giving the benefits of the CAS from the date of their initial appointment without having NET/SET qualification may kindly be quashed and set aside as per the issue is not only related to the petitioners but is covers very large number of teachers and it will prejudicially affect the interest of Net/MPhil/Ph.D qualified teachers and accordingly will pollute whole state of Higher Education. I, therefore submit that in the facts and circumstances raised herein above, the said Writ Petition and other similar writ petitions be dismissed with costs.”
71Strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners who are holders of NET/SET qualification on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Beena Inamdar v. University of Pune (supra). While dealing with the provisions of Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, Sections 5(9), 5(60), 14(8) and the UGC Act, Sections 12 (d), 14, 26(1)(e), it is noted that the qualification prescribed by the UGC, though not provided in the State University Act or the Statute, the University is not absolved from abiding by the qualifications prescribed by the UGC. This is in the background that all the Universities are affiliated to the UGC specifically for the grant and related benefits. Referring to various Supreme Court judgments, it is concluded that all the Universities or the Colleges affiliated to such Universities to such Universities are bound by UGC Regulations. The noncompliance, if any, can be excused by relaxation only by the UGC, if case is made out and not as of right. This reported case was also a case of dgm 144 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwappointments of nonNET/SET candidates, as the Principal of the College based upon advertisement dated 6 July 2006. The facts are distinguishable, but the law so laid down giving importance to the UGC declared prescribed qualification, cannot be overlooked. The judgment of Supreme Court in University of Delhi v. Raj Singh (supra)along with others was referred by the Division Bench and thereby dismissed the petition giving importance to the prescribed qualification for the related posts of Principal.
72The State's conscious decision knowing fully the consequences thereto including the obligations of disbursement of salaries and all related benefits itself projected the important role in dealing with the employment and service matters of education institutions, covering by Universities, which are affiliated to the UGC.
Ph. D./M.Phil are exempted from NET/SET
73Merely because some of the NET/SET candidates based upon then existing merit and/or otherwise after acquiring Ph.D/M. Phil have been appointed as Principal of Colleges and got all the benefits that itself cannot be the reason to extend the benefit similar dgm 145 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwto the NET/SET qualified teachers. We see there is nothing wrong when the State Government has taken a policy decision to grant the declared benefits to the nonNET/SET teachers.Merely because for some subjects, NET/SET examinations were not available, but the appointments were made, without NET/SET test, is a different issue. These are two different classes. The doctrine of equal pay and status for equal work cannot be extended as prayed, in the circumstances.
74The regularisation of services of nonNET/SET candidates, because of State Resolution and/or relaxation so granted by the UGC that itself is not sufficient to treat them equally with the candidates who have passed the NET/SET and acquired basic eligibility for the post. The Supreme Court Judgment in Jagdish Kumar and ors v. State of H. P.[18] is on different facts and circumstances specifically in view of specific conditions so put in by the State and the UGC to get all the rights and the benefits from the date of appointments or from the date of acquiring qualification. These are not the cases of challenge to the seniority list to be prepared based upon the passed departmental examination.
=Similar duties by NonNET/SET or with NET/SET equal payscale & increment benefits.
75The submission that nonNET/SET teachers have been performing all the duties that are performed by the NET/SET teachers, is of no assistance to grant the benefits so claimed as the class so created and recognized by the State, in no way can be stated to be discriminatory and/or treating equals unequally. On the contrary, the State, inspite of above basic qualification lacuna and or no requisite qualification and/or failure to acquire qualification inspite of opportunity granted, protected their services by earlier Resolutions and by the Resolution in question.
The role of State of Maharashtra and its financial burden76The financial burden on the State is relevant factor. All eligible candidates who have passed the NET/SET examination, the State is providing them all benefits as announced. In the present cases, in the circumstances so referred above, though they have not acquired the NET/SET, still considering the background and the reason so mentioned in Government Resolution dated 27 June 2013, the State has granted the benefits from the date of Resolution. The
dgm 147 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwbenefits so extended, though from the date which is also the issue, but considering the reason so recorded and in the interest of justice and to protect the interest of such teachers, who have been working since long, but not getting the CAS benefits for want of NET/SET qualification, cannot be stated, to be bad in law. The State's action is reasonable, fair, just and proper and within their power and authority. Union of India had released grants from 1991 to 1995 to such nonNET/SET lecturers.
77It is relevant to note that the UGC, now has no specific role to play with regard to the payment of salary and all other CAS benefits, as ultimately it is the respective States who are required to make the arrangement for such payment. Selection of candidates to whom such benefits should be granted or not, or from which date, in the present case, the persons who acquired the qualification and who have not acquired the qualification, in our view, is within the power and jurisdiction of the State. The action and the condition for such benefits, can not be stated to be discriminatory and/or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India so also the the State Resolution in question.
78As recorded, even the Supreme Court in Suseela (supra) deprecated/prohibited UGC for any blanket NET/SET exemptions. We have also noted that Union of India/Central Government, at no point of time, accepted the proposals so forwarded and/or never granted approval to the action of relaxation/exemption so issued by the UGC. In some cases, the UGC, in the year 2010, even withdrew the relaxation granted earlier. The State Government's action of considering and of taking sympathetic view by way of concession, in the background of the litigation and the Circular issued by the Respondents and the interpretation given is within the State policy.
79Respondent No.3/UGC, in Writ Petition No.10166 of 2013, dated 23.11.2015 has also clarified the position that even if exemptions have been granted, Resolutions of 8.7.2011 itself was for the protection of services of the lecturers regularly appointed between 19.9.1991 to 3.4.2000. It is for the protection of services only. The aspects of regularising the services of such candidates/teachers/lecturers in the background so referred above, need no interference.
80Therefore, in this background, the restriction so put by the State Government of granting benefits including of protecting services from the date of resolution as a policy decision considering the State's obligation, we are not accepting the alternate submission of the Petitioners that they are entitled for the benefits if not from the date of appointments, but at least from the date of stated individual date of exemption granted by the UGC.
81It is clear that CAS provides benefits for a teacher who has appointed on full time regular basis and renders continuous services will get time bound promotion, whereby he receives senior designation and increased pay scale. Therefore, a qualified person who is in continuous services is entitled for the CAS benefits as per the scheme. The requirement of NET/SET, therefore, cannot be overlooked and the appointments, therefore, even if made, who has not passed the NET/SET examination cannot be treated equally. However, the pay scale of such teacher (nonNET/SET teacher) is at par with that of NET/SET qualified teacher.
82In view of above and in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty,[19] in para 70 which is reproduced hereinbelow, we are not accepting the case of rival Petitioners and we are accepting the stand and the submission so raised by the State and so also their Resolution, whereby the benefits such as CAS and other related benefits have been denied, but services have been protected.
“70In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that terminating the services of those who had been appointed illegally and/or withdrawing the benefits of grantinaid scheme of those who had not completed the deficiency in eligibility/educational qualification or withdrawing the benefit thereof from those who had been granted from the date prior to completing the deficiency, may not be desirable as a long period has elapsed. So far as the grant of UGC pay scale is concerned, it cannot be granted prior to the date of acquisition of higher qualification. In view of the above, the impugned judgment/order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”
State granting continuity of service to NonNET/SETcandidates/lecturers/professors 83The grant of continuity of service and regularisation by the State though they have not acquired requisite qualification of 2011 (3) SCC 436
dgm 151 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwNE5T/SET which is the recent development after the judgment so referred above and as the State has taken that decision and as it is in the interest of protecting the services of all concerned and as they have been in service for so many years, therefore, also we are not inclined to disturb the policy decision so taken by the State, with concurrence of the State General Administration and Law and Judiciary Departments. However, the regularisation of nonNET/SET teachers, adhoc teachers preferences from the date of Government Resolution, and other benefits so announced, is just, proper and within the frame work of law keeping in mind the mandate of Supreme Court Judgments and the provisions about basic qualification of NET/SET.
84The Government (State Policy) (translation portion) (State affidavit) decision is as under :
“14Taking into account the scenario set out in the Introduction, the Notification of the University Grants Commission dated 19.9.1991 was implemented in the State from 23.10.1992; hence provisions of the said G.R cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect from 19.9.1991. Ergo, the qualification contained in University Grants Commission Notification dated 19.9.1991 cannot be made applicable to teachers appointed prior to 23.10.1992.
15For such among the nonNET/SET teachers appointed during the period 23.10.1992 to 3.4.2000 who have not acquired the educational qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission (NET/SET, Ph. D., M. Phil), the Government is sanctioning regularization of their services for all purposes from the date of issuance of this Government Resolution, subject to the following conditions:
a)Concerned teacher ought to have been appointed on Regular Basis.
b)Appointment of concerned teachers was made in the teaching post in accordance with the prescribed procedure c )Appointment of concerned teacher fulfilling all other prescribed qualifications and conditions except NET/SET was approved by the University.
d)The concerned teacher's proposal for approval from the University Grants Commission has been forwarded through the University.
16The Joint Director of the concerned Region shall constitute a committee under their Chairmanship to examine on merits the cases under their jurisdiction for the period 23.10.1992 to 3.4.2000. This screening committee will submit a selfexplanatory proposal to the Director of Education, Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune for approval at the level of the Directorate after examining whether or not the entire procedure between the advertisement for the post of the concerned teacher up to the issuance of appointment order, has been in accordance with rules, and close scrutiny of all matters such as the post being a vacant one, social reservation being followed; thereafter approval be given at Director's level.
17Similarly such of the affected nonNET/SET
teachers who have been appointed as Principal or equivalent post, by holding admissible past service rendered by them, will not be disturbed and also the increments and pay drawn as per existing provisions will not be disturbed. Separate government resolutions will be issued on both these subjects.
18Since the services of these teachers are being regularized for all purposes from the date of issuance of this Government Resolution, the defined contribution pension scheme will be applicable to them.”
85Considering the above provisions, including the Government Resolutions/circulars, we are not inclined to accept the submissions of the Petitioners who have acquired the qualification of NET/SET that the UGC has no power to grant exemption in the matters of appointments upto 2000. The challenge to letters 16.08.2011 and 26.08.2011 is also disposed off for above reasons. No case is made out of any contempt, as prayed.
Earlier Supreme Court/High Court judgments not considered byHigh Court in Asha Bidkar 86We have also noted that in the judgment of Asha Bidkar (supra), the judgment of Raj Singh (supra) was not considered and so also the judgment of Beena Inamdar (supra) and also Division Bench
dgm 154 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwjudgment dated 23.01.2006 in Writ Petition No.10216/2004Savant Ramesh Dattu v. The State of Maharashtra, [Raj Singh (supra), Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and ors (2009) 4 SCC 590 and State of Orissa (supra). These judgments have dealt specifically with the UGC Act and 1991 UGC Regulations revolving around power to relax and the importance of essential qualifications and the standards of education in question. The Universities never stated that Regulations are not binding. 87There is no question to refer the matter to the larger Bench, as, in view of order of Supreme Court (supra), including in State of Maharashtra v. Asha Bidkar (Supra) and Suseela (supra) and Kalyani (supra) and other Supreme Court judgments referred above and/or earlier orders of this Court, were not in the field when Asha Bidkar (High Court) (supra) and other similar matters were decided. The specific Central Government's reply, the UGC's reply and the State's reply filed before this Court recently, were not before the High Courts earlier. Therefore, considering the totality of matters, we have decided to deal with the issues afresh by giving the supporting dgm 155 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwreasons and keeping in mind that Appeals/SLPs are pending in Supreme Court.
88In many writ petitions, there are interim orders passed based upon the interim orders passed by the Supreme Court and the earlier judgments/orders of this High Court. All the Writ Petitions, are dismissed by this common Judgment and so also the claims for want of NET/SET qualification, therefore, the interim orders of High Court, if any, in individual matters are also stand vacated. However, in view of the fact that the matters are pending in Supreme Court and as we have decided these matters based upon the orders passed by the Supreme Court, pending the Appeals and the Special Leave Petitions, we are inclined to observe that this judgment shall not be given effect, so far as the order of vacating interim orders are concerned, till the Supreme Court passes an appropriate order. The Respondents/parties, if required, to take any steps based upon this judgment, shall be after further order of the Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, we are also directing the Registry of this Court to forward the copy of this judgment to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10759/2013 – State of Maharashtra v. Asha Ramdas Bidkar along with connected dgm 156 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxwmatters, if any, at the earliest.
89We have, in view of above and for the reasons so recorded, disposed of the present Petitions by this common judgment. It is made clear that this judgment will be applicable to all the similarly placed writ Petitioners also, who did not appear inspite of due notices of hearing.
90We record our appreciation of the role of all senior Counsel and Advocates, who have rendered able assistance to the Court and placed on records common synopsis, submissions and written notes, along with common judgments compilation, after necessary research.
91Therefore, the following order :
ORDER
Itisdeclaredthatthe teachers/professors/lecturers/candidates who have not acquired NET/SET/TEST qualification and who are appointed during 24.10.1992 to 3.4.2000
dgm 157 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
(except 19.9.1991 to 23.10.1992) (see Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013) are not entitled for CAS (Career Advancement Scheme) and other related benefits except the benefits including the pay scale and increments and other related benefits, as announced by the State, but on conditions so reproduced.
Upon acquiring NET/SET qualification, the teachers shall be entitled for the CAS and other related benefits in accordance with law from the date of acquisition of qualification of NET/SET as announced.
The challenge to the validity of the impugned State Government Resolution dated 27 June 2013 is rejected. The action of the State of Maharashtra is upheld. The State/Universities/Colleges to take steps accordingly.
In view of above, all the Writ Petitions, Contempt Petitions and Civil Applications are dismissed accordingly.
dgm 158 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
5) Rule in all the above matters is discharged and/or disposed of accordingly.
6) Ad/interim reliefs, if any, stand vacated, subject to para 88 hereof.
7) There shall be no order as to costs.
8) The Registry to forward copy of this judgment to Hon'ble Supreme Court, at the earliest, for record of Civil Appeal No. 10759 of 2013 and other connected Appeals and Special Leave Petitions. connected Appeals and Special Leave Petitions.
(A. A. SAYED, J.)
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)