- (1.)By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dtd. 16/3/2019 passed by the respondent no.1 - Hon'ble Chancellor directing the respondent no.3 - Vice Chancellor, Kaviyatri Bahinabai Chaudhari North Maharashtra University, Umavi nagar, Jalgaon to terminate the services of the petitioner on the post of Associate Professor in the subject of Mass Communication and Journalism and also consequential order dtd. 20/3/2019 issued by the respondent no. 3 - Vice Chancellor, thereby terminating the services of the petitioner to the post of Associate Professor with effect from 20/4/2019.
(2.)Brief facts leading to filing of the petition can be summarized are as under :
i] The respondent no. 2 - University published advertisement on 4/10/2012 in the daily news papers, namely, Indian Express, Dainik Samrat, Dainik Punya Nagari, Dainik Divya Marathi etc. and also on the website of the University, thereby calling upon the applications for various posts including the post of Associate Professor from Open Category in the Department of Mass Communication and Journalism. In the said advertisement, the following qualification was prescribed for the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Mass Communication and Journalism :

i. Good academic record with Ph.D. degree in the concerned / allied / relevant disciplines.

ii. A Masters Degree with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed).

iii. A minimum of 8 years of experience of teaching and or research in an academic research position equivalent to that of Assistant Professor in a university, college or accredited research institution / industry excluding the period of Ph.D. research with evidence of published work and a minimum of 5 publications as books and/or research/policy paper.

iv. Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricular and courses, and technology mediated teaching learning process with evidence of having guided Doctoral candidates and research students. v. A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), set out in the UGC Regulations, appendix III dtd. 30/6/2010.

ii] Pursuant to the said advertisement, the respondent no.2 received the applications for the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Mass Communication and Journalism, NMU, Jalgaon of three candidates viz. Dr. Tukaram Vitthal Daud [petitioner], Dr.Vishaka Murlidhar Garkhedkar and Dr.Sudhir Bhagwan Bhatkar [respondent no.4]. On scrutiny of the applications, Dr.Vishaka Murlidhar Garkhedkar and Dr.Sudhir Bhagwan Bhatkar were not found ineligible and the petitioner was the only candidates found eligible. The case of the petitioner was considered by the duly constituted Selection Committee under Sec. 76 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 [for short 'the 1994 Act']. The said Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner, and accordingly, the petitioner was appointed on 17/12/2012 on probation period of 2 years in the Department of Mass Communication and Journalism. The said appointment was, thereafter, confirmed on 14/7/2015. iii] Dr. Sudhir Bhagwan Bhatkar i.e. respondent no.4 challenged the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Associate Professor before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad by filing a Writ Petition No.11467/2014. This Court, while hearing the above Writ Petition, passed the order dtd. 16/12/2014 observing that there is an alternate remedy provided under sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 76 of the 1994 Act and the said Writ Petition was disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner therein to file appropriate proceeding under Sec. 76 (7) of the 1994 Act before the Hon'ble Chancellor.

iv] The respondent no.4, thereafter, filed a representation under Sec. 76 [7] of the Act of 1994 before the Hon'ble Chancellor on 22/12/2014. The Hon'ble Chancellor, vide letter / order dtd. 13/1/2015, directed the respondents to file reply to the grievance raised by the respondent no.4. Thereafter, the Registrar of the respondent no.2 University submitted factual report along with the documents vide communication dtd. 2/6/2015. The Chancellor found that the report of the Registrar was vague and sketchy and directed the Vice Chancellor to examine the issue of appointment of the petitioner afresh and send factual report on specific points along with relevant documents.

v] Thereafter, the Vice-Chancellor appointed a three Member Fact Finding Committee. After making an enquiry and after recording the statement of the petitioner and others, the said Committee made its report. The said report was placed before the Management Council of the University and the same was accepted and approved. Thereafter, the enquiry report and other material collected by the University was placed before the Chancellor for appropriate decision. The Chancellor gave hearing to the petitioner and the concerned parties and thereafter by impugned order dtd. 16/3/2019 directed respondent no.3 to terminate the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Associate Professor as per Sec. 102 (6) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 [for short 'the 2016 Act']. The respondent no. 3 in compliance with the order dtd. 16/3/2019 passed by the Hon'ble Chancellor, terminated the services of the petitioner to the post of Associate Professor with effect from 20/4/2019 vide order dtd. 20/3/2019. The petitioner has thus challenged the order of termination passed by the Hon'ble Chancellor and corresponding order passed by the Vice Chancellor terminating the services of the petitioner in the instant petition.

(3.)The petitioner submits that the termination order dtd. 20/3/2019 is passed by the Chancellor, is on the following grounds (i) that the petitioner did not have requisite qualification, in terms of teaching experience, (ii) insufficient API score and (iii) non guidance to the Ph.D. students, which was the required qualification at the relevant time. Apropos above, the learned Counsel Mr.Dighe for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had the requisite qualification.
vi] Mr.Dighe, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the principles of natural justice were not followed. He further contends that the petition at the behest of respondent no. 4 under Sec. 76 (7) of the Act of 1994 is not maintainable as he himself has undergone the selection process. He further contends that the decision of the Selection Committee of Experts should not have been re-examined by three Member Committee consisting of Registrar, Advocate and Officer junior in rank to the petitioner in the University.

vii] The petitioner has given a chart to show his educational qualification and teaching experience in his application, which is as under:
JUDGEMENT_221_LAWS(BOM)2_2023_1.jpg
13. No. of Projects and Grants sanctioned by various funding Agencies, if any :
JUDGEMENT_221_LAWS(BOM)2_2023_2.jpg
viii] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his total teaching experience is of 8 years and 10 months. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has given his chart of teaching experience as under :-
JUDGEMENT_221_LAWS(BOM)2_2023_3.jpg
viii] The Selection Committee constituted of the following members, is as under :
JUDGEMENT_221_LAWS(BOM)2_2023_4.jpg
ix] The statement showing the position held by the petitioner prior to applying the institution, as under :
JUDGEMENT_221_LAWS(BOM)2_2023_5.jpg