DR. BABURAO DHARAMDAS GHARADE vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTH.

Full Judgment Text

2015:BHC-AS:29409-DB
dgm 1 wp-2082-13 -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 Bhavan
BRoad, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020
(through its General Secretary) ….Petitioner.
Vs.
1 The State of Maharashtra
through the Principal Secretary
Department of Higher & Technical
Education Mantralaya, Mumbai400 032.
2 The Director of Education
(Higher Education), Maharashtra
Central Building,
Pune 411 001.
3 The University Grants Commissioner
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002.
(Through its Secretary)
4 Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resources Department
served through the office of Assistant
Solicitor General, High Court, Bombay. ...Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:47 :::

dgm 2 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 60 OF 2015
MORE KAILAS BHANUDAS AND 191 ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND 4 ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 383 OF 2015
PROF. SATTENDRA VIJAY RAJE AND 79 OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
AND 4 OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 643 OF 2015
RAJESHRI P. KADAM AND 63 OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
AND 4 OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 770 OF 2015
JADHAV KIRAN A AND 12 ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 5 ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1282 OF 2015
RANE SONIA SANJAY AND 6 OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND 4 OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:47 :::

dgm 3 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1306 OF 2015
DR.VIJAY N PAWAR AND 14 ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
AND 7 ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1311 OF 2015
MRS MICHELLE PHILIP AND 50 OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
AND 4 OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1544 OF 2015
TEJASHREE VINAYAK SHANBHAG AND 44 ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 5 ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1899 OF 2015
GANESH VISHWAS JOSHI AND 30 ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND 4 ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1901 OF 2015
JANINE ALMEIDA ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND 4 ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2031 OF 2015
RITA ALEXANDER ...Petitioner(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:47 :::

dgm 4 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 6 ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2133 OF 2014
ARCHANA S. THAKUR AND 14 OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
AND 8 OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2480 OF 2015
PAGAR NARAYAN MURLIDHAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 6 ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2575 OF 2015
DR. MRS. SAUMITRA SUSHIL SAWANT
ALIAS KUM. VIJAYMALA KRISHNARAO
ABITKAR AND 8 ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND 6 ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2632 OF 2013
MS. LATA S. BHOSALE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 4 ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3196 OF 2015
JYOTI G. TALWATKAR @ JYOTI R. PARULKAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND 8 ORS. ...Respondent(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:47 :::

dgm 5 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
ALONG WITH
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Writ Petition NO. 334 OF 2009
DILIPKUMAR ANNASAHEB PAWAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN UNIVERSITY
GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 336 OF 2009
SUNIL MADHUKAR JOSHI ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN UNIVERSITY GRANTS
COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 338 OF 2009
GAUTAM DNYANDEV DHUMAL ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN UNIVERSITY GRANTS
COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 340 OF 2009
DEEPAK KRISHNARAO HIMAYATNAGARKAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN UNIVERSITY GRANTS
COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 342 OF 2009
BABAN DAMODAR SADAMATE ...Petitioner(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:47 :::

dgm 6 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN UNIVERSITY
GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 369 OF 2009
VIJAYKUMAR SHREEPATRAO PANASKAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN UNIVERSITY GRANTS
COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 374 OF 2009
ASHOK BABU MANE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN UNIVERSITY GRANTS
COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 377 OF 2009
KHANAPURE SHARANBASAPPA GANPATI ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN UNIVERSITY GRANTS
COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 402 OF 2009
PRAKASH GANPAT KUMBHAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN UNIVERSITY
GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 560 OF 2014
PRABHAKAR EKNATH JADHAV AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:47 :::

dgm 7 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT OF HIGHER
EDUCATION AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 781 OF 2015
DR. MADHAV DAGDU PAGARE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 809 OF 2015
RAMAKANT PRABHAKAR JOSHI AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 1371 OF 2015
PROF. DEEPAK RAJARAM YEOLE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 1378 OF 2015
DR. LAHANU GOVIND RETWADE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 1467 OF 2011
SOPAN MANSING RATHOD ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:47 :::

dgm 8 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 1472 OF 2011
WITH
Civil Application NO. 254 OF 2015
PRAMOD DATTATRAYA SONAWANE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 1479 OF 2011
WITH
Civil Application No. 255 of 2015
KISAN MAHADEO GADVE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 1480 OF 2011
WITH
Civil Application No. 256 of 2015
AHER RANGNAT KISAN ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 1481 OF 2011
WITH
Civil Application No. 258 of 2015
DNYANESHWAR MARUTI MAHAJAN ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 1662 OF 2014
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:47 :::

dgm 9 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
SANJAYKUMAR MARUTI MAGDUM AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH
SECRETARY, DEPT OF HIGHER AND
TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 1664 OF 2014
SHR. SHALGAONKAR SUDAM RAJRAM AND ANR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
THROUGH SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPT AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 1714 OF 2011
WITH
Civil Application No. 257 of 2015
DR GUGALE GULAB SHESHMAL ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 1811 OF 2009
SALIL IBRAHIM MODAK ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
DR. BALASAHEB SAWANT KOKAN
KRISHI VIDYAPEETH, DAPOLI AND ANR. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 1987 OF 2015
PRATAP BAPUSO LAD ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:47 :::

dgm 10 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 1988 OF 2015
RAJENDRA KARBHARI PATIL AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 1989 OF 2015
PANDURANG JAGANNATH RUPNAR AND ANR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 2119 OF 2015
LANGOTE ULHAS BANAB AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 2503 OF 2015
DR. RAMESH MAHADEO GEJAGE AND ANR. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 2823 OF 2014
ARJUN GANGARAM NERKAR AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPT OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:47 :::

dgm 11 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 3195 OF 2015
HANUMANT KRISHNA AWATADE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 3874 OF 2014
SHRI. DR. BHARAT VITTHAL PATIL ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
THROUGH SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPT AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 4455 OF 2015
DR. GHORUDE TATYARAO NAMDEORAO AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5591 OF 2015
SHIVAJI UNIVERSITY TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION (SUTA)
THROUGH ITS OFFICE SECRETARY
DR. S.A. BOJAGAR AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOV. OF MAHA. AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:47 :::

dgm 12 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Writ Petition NO. 5762 OF 2015
MAHARASHTRA NET/SET QUALIFIED
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION THROUGH
ITS ACTING PRESIDENT
DR. A BAGUL AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5849 OF 2015
DR. SHESHRAO S/O VENKATRAO SHETE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5851 OF 2015

DR. VIVEK VISHNUPANT JOSHI AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY FOR HIGHER
AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Civil Application (St.) No. 27919 of 2015
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 5851 OF 2015
Krishna K. Dixit ..Applicant
Vs.
DR. VIVEK VISHNUPANT JOSHI AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5863 OF 2015
SHRI VILAS RAMBHAU THAKRE & OHR. ...Petitioner(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:47 :::

dgm 13 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5864 OF 2015
DIWAKAR MALOJI KAMBLE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTH. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5865 OF 2015
PRAMILA D/O UDHAVRAO BHAGAT AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5866 OF 2015
DR. SANJAY DIGAMBAR PALWEKAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTH. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5867 OF 2015
DR. SYED HUSAIN HAIDAR ZAIDI ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5868 OF 2015
DR. (MRS) KALPANA VASANT JADHAV ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTH. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 14 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Writ Petition NO. 5869 OF 2015
DR.WASUDHA JAGDISH
MESHRAM AND 2 OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5870 OF 2015
DR.MADHAV S/O. KISANRAO ZARE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE SATES OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5871 OF 2015
DR. MS. MUBARAQUE QURAISHI ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5872 OF 2015
DILIP S/O. ZAGA CHAUDHARI ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5873 OF 2015
DR.RAMESH KAWDUJI NIKHADE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5874 OF 2015
DR. VILAS S/O BAPURAO AGHAV ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 15 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
1) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5875 OF 2015
DR.WASUDEO JAIRAMJI CHOUDHARI ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5876 OF 2015
DR. RAJESH S/O PANDURANG
WAIGAONKAR AND ANR. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTH. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5877 OF 2015
RAJENDRA RAKHAMAJI DANDAWATE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5878 OF 2015
DR. VILAS KESHAVRAO BHIMANWAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5879 OF 2015
DR.VILAS TULSHIRAM GAJBHIYE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5880 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 16 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
SUNITA NATHA KALE @ SUNITA
ARVIND JAGTAP AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5881 OF 2015
DR. BABURAO DHARAMDAS GHARADE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTH. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5883 OF 2015
TANAJI SHAMRAO MOREY ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5885 OF 2015
RAJU S/O BALIRAM GORE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5887 OF 2015
DR. RAMESHKUMAR S/O
VISHWAMBHARRAO KAKDE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5889 OF 2015
DR.MAHENDRA PUNDLIKRAO DHORE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 17 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
THA STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5890 OF 2015
DR.RAVINDRA S/O. MAHADU SALUNKE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5892 OF 2015
DR RAJESH SHANTARAMJI HAJARE, ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTH. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5893 OF 2015
1) SANJAY S/O. RATAN KHAIRNAR AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT OF
MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5894 OF 2015
DR. HARIBHAU S/O TUKARAM SATPUTE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5898 OF 2015
DR.MANISHA KRISHNARAO DESHPANDE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 18 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5899 OF 2015
VIJAY DALPATRAO KAPSE & OTHRS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTH. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5900 OF 2015
DR. ANIL S/O . GANPATRAO GACCHE
AND ANOTHER ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5904 OF 2015
VISHWANATH EKNATH PATIL ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5905 OF 2015
TIKARAM S/O DEWAJI KOKE & OTHR. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTH. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5906 OF 2015
NARESH RANGRAOJI YENORKAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5910 OF 2015
ANIL NARAYANRAO KALYANKAR AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 19 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5911 OF 2015
DR. BALIRAM VISHWANATH RAKH AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5915 OF 2015
DR. SHARAD RAMCHANDRA DAVARE AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5916 OF 2015
SANJAY NATTHUJI SHENDE AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5917 OF 2015
VILAS KASHINATHJI GHATURLE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5918 OF 2015
1. DR. BHAGWANDAS G. SURYAWANSHI ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5922 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 20 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
BHUMREDDY VITHALREDDY PULLAGOR. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5923 OF 2015
NANASAHEB S/O SANTOSH PATIL ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE NORTH MAHARASHTRA
UNIVERSITY AND OTHER ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5926 OF 2015
DR. NANDKISHOR S/O HANUMANTRAO
DESLE AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
Writ Petition NO. 5927 OF 2015
NAGPUR UNIVERSITY TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY SHRI ANIL WAMANRAO DHAGE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5928 OF 2015
DAYANAND RAMRAO MANE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5929 OF 2015
ASHA NATTUJI KATEKHAYE ...Petitioner(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 21 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5931 OF 2015
DR. VISHNU S/O RAMDAS GUNJAL ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5932 OF 2015
SANJAY NIVRATIRAO KADAM AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5933 OF 2015
SANJEEV MACHINDRA REDDY AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF
GOVERNEMTN OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5935 OF 2015
YOGESHWAR Y. DUDHAPACHARE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5936 OF 2015
VASUDEO S/O SOMAJI PATEL AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNI. GRANTS COMMISSION, AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 22 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5942 OF 2015
PRAFUL SAHEBRAO DEORE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5944 OF 2015
DR. SUNIL VIKRAM KUWAR AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5945 OF 2015
DR. CHHAYA P. PATLE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5952 OF 2015
NEELIMA SHRIRAMPANT HAJARE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5954 OF 2015
SANJAY RAMDAS PAKHMODE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5955 OF 2015
DR. ANIL SHIVRANGI DAHAT AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 23 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5956 OF 2015
SUBHASH GIRDHAR SALUNKE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5957 OF 2015
JUGAL PANDURANG TAYADE. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5958 OF 2015
BHARAT MOTIRAM RATHOD ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5960 OF 2015
DR. BALKRISHNA BALIRAM PARSHURAMKAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5962 OF 2015
DR.ANIL MAHADEORAO SHENDE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5963 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 24 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
SHASHANK JANARDAN AGLAWE AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5964 OF 2015
DR. NAMDEO S/O NIVRUTTI MUNDHE. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5965 OF 2015
1)KAILAS S/O BHALERAO PATIL AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5967 OF 2015
PRITHVIRAJ JAISING KHINCHI ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5969 OF 2015
BHASKAR S/O. SHANKAR TEKALE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5972 OF 2015
BIPINCHANDRA S/O NARAYAN SHINDE AND ANR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 25 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5974 OF 2015
GAJANAN RAMRAO SOMKUWAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5976 OF 2015
DR. ABHAY BHAUSAHEB SALUNKE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5981 OF 2015
DR.KALIDAS S/O PRABHAKARRAO
GUDADE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5982 OF 2015
ANIL DEWAJI GAIKWAD ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5986 OF 2015
RAMESHCHANDRA FULCHAND AGARWAL ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE NORTH MAHARASHTRA
UNIVERSITY AND OTHER ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5989 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 26 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
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)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5990 OF 2015
RADHESHYAM KUSAN DIPTE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5994 OF 2015
DR. VIJAY S. DIGHORE AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5995 OF 2015
MADHUKAR FAKIRAJI JADHAV ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 5996 OF 2015
NAGPUR UNIVERSITY TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION,AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6001 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 27 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
SATISH WAMANRAO KHARWADE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6003 OF 2015
DR.MRS.SHUBHA A. GHADGE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6006 OF 2015
SHRI. DILIP LAXMANRAO THAKRE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6008 OF 2015
DEVENDRA S/O NARAYAN VYAS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6009 OF 2015
SHRI RAJESH LILADHARRAO
GULHANE AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6010 OF 2015
DR.(MRS) SHALINI RAMDAS FULMALI AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 28 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6011 OF 2015
RAMESH R. KOHAD ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6012 OF 2015
SANJAY SAHEBRAO TAKADE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6013 OF 2015
PRAKASH LAXMANRAO NEULKAR AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6014 OF 2015
ANANDRAO RATIRAM RAMTEKE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6029 OF 2015
DR. SHASHIKANT SHIVAPPA TOLMARE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
MAHARASHTRA STATE AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6030 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 29 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
DR. RAMESH UMLA ADE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6032 OF 2015
DR.MAHESH S/O SAKHARAM BACHEWAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6033 OF 2015
DR. NANASAHEB BALASAHEB PATIL AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6035 OF 2015
SHRI SUHAS TUKARAM KOLIKAR AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6036 OF 2015
DR. AJAY S/O. PRABHAKAR KUNTE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
OF GOVERNEMENT OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6037 OF 2015
DR. BALU S/O. SOPANRAO GITTE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 30 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6038 OF 2015
DR.KISHAN S/O RAMLU SUNEWAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6039 OF 2015
VAIJANATH VENKATRAO CHATE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS
COMMISSIONER AND ANR ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6040 OF 2015
DR. SANJAY VASANTRAO DESHMUKH
AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6041 OF 2015
DR. SANJAY VISHWASRAO BORSE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6043 OF 2015
SUHAS S/O. RANGNATHRAO MORALE AND ANR. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 31 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Writ Petition NO. 6045 OF 2015
SUNIL GULAB PANPATIL ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6046 OF 2015
DR.SHRIRAM S/O SATWAJI JADHAV ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6047 OF 2015
SUNIL MADHUKAR NAVE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6048 OF 2015
SATISH S/O. SURESHRAO HIVAREKAR AND ANR. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ 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)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6050 OF 2015
RAVI DHONDIRAJ BARDE ...Petitioner(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 32 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6051 OF 2015
DR.SANJAY S/O NIVRATIRAO SHINDE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6055 OF 2015
RAJKUMAR KISANRAO BHAGAT, ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6057 OF 2015
LOTAN JAGANNATH GAWLI AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6059 OF 2015
KAILASH SHRAVAN PATIL AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6061 OF 2015
DR. MOHAMMAD ABDUL BASEER
S/O MOHAMMAD ABDUL BARI ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY, ...Respondent(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 33 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6063 OF 2015
DR. RAMESH MOHANRAO DHONDGE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6064 OF 2015
DILIP DAJIBA CHAUDHARI ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6068 OF 2015
SUNIL RAOSAHEB RAUT ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE UNION OF INIDA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6069 OF 2015
SHRINIVASRAO RANGRAO BHUPALWAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6070 OF 2015
MADHAV NAMDEV GAIKWAD AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6073 OF 2015
PROF. ARUN S/O BABURAO JADHAO ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 34 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6074 OF 2015
DR. MADHUKAR PANDHARINATH AGHAV AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6075 OF 2015
VASANT DEVIDASRAO SATPUTE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6076 OF 2015
NAGPUR UNIVERSITY TEACHER'S
ASSOCIATIION, AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6077 OF 2015
DR. MADHAVRAO RAGHOJI JADHAV AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6078 OF 2015
ASHOK DAULATRAO CHAVAN AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6079 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 35 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
SURESH S/O. BHASKAR DHAKE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6080 OF 2015
RAJENDRA UESHWANTRAO DESHMUKH ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6081 OF 2015
DR. ANAND VISHWANATH MANWAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6082 OF 2015
DR.SANJAY PANDURANG PATIL ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6088 OF 2015
DR.SURESH KAUTIK SHELAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6090 OF 2015
DR. SYED SHUJAUT ALI S/O SYED INAYAT ALI ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 36 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6092 OF 2015
NAGPUR UNIVERSITY TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS , ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY, ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6100 OF 2015
DR. KAMLAKAR S/O ESHAO ASKAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6105 OF 2015
CHHAYA VECHYA THINGALE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6108 OF 2015
NARENDRA S/O SUMERCHAND SHARMA ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6111 OF 2015
RAJU S/O SITARAM PAWAR AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
OTHERS THROUGH ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6112 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 37 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
VIJAY S/O. BHOJU KHAIRNAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6115 OF 2015
ANIL S/O MAHADU CHAUDARI ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6116 OF 2015
NAGPUR UNIVERSITY TEACHER'S
ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6117 OF 2015
DHIRAJ RATILAL VAISHANAV ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Civil Application No. 1847 of 2015
IN
Writ Petition NO. 6117 OF 2015
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ….Applicants.
Versus
DHIRAJ RATILAL VAISHANAV ...Respondent
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6118 OF 2015
ASHOK S/O PANDURANG NIKAM ...Petitioner(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 38 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6121 OF 2015
ANIL S/O. VITTHAL BAVISKAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6124 OF 2015
DR. KISHOR S/O. GOVIND KOLHE & OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6125 OF 2015
DR. SIRAS BHAYYALAL KATMUSARE
AND OTHERS R/O RANI INDIRABAI ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6126 OF 2015
DR.SHAKUNTALA MITHARAM BHARAMBE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6129 OF 2015
IDRISKHAN S/O GOHARKHAN PATHAN ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 39 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
OTHERS THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6131 OF 2015
DR. SUNIL GANPAT BAVISKAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6133 OF 2015
SAU. MANDAKINI NILKANTH CHAUDHARI ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6135 OF 2015
VISHWAS S/O NIMBA KOLI & ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6137 OF 2015
DR. KARUNA W/O PRATAP DESHMUKH ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6138 OF 2015
DR. SANGITA SANDEEP SHINDE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6139 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 40 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
SHIVSHANKAR S/O NAGASHETTEY HALLALE, ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6140 OF 2015
RAVINDRA MARUTI CHOBHE AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6141 OF 2015
PROF.DR.AVINASH YOGRAJ BADGUJAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6142 OF 2015
DR. KIRANKUMAR S/O LAXMANRAO BONDAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6144 OF 2015
HIRALAL MANGAL PATIL ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6145 OF 2015
DR. VANDEO CHIMANJI BORKAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 41 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6146 OF 2015
MOHAN S/O THOGYA PAWARA ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6147 OF 2015
DR. DILIP S/O SAMBHAJIRAO
PALIMKAR AND ANOTHER ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6148 OF 2015
PROF. DR. SMT. INDIRA SANTOSH PATIL ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6152 OF 2015
GOVIND ONKAR CHAUDHARI ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6153 OF 2015
NILESH S/O HIRALAL CHITTE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6154 OF 2015
SATISH S/O KISHANPRASAD TIWARI ...Petitioner(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 42 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6158 OF 2015
SAU. JAYASHREE C. SALUNKHE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6161 OF 2015
MADUKAR S/O GANDADHAR KASAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6164 OF 2015
SHAIKH HASIM HOHD. ISSAK ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6166 OF 2015
JITENDRA SHAMSING GIRASE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6167 OF 2015
MIRZA MAQSOOD BAIG AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6180 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 43 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
NITIN PANDURANGRAO BAWALE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS . ..Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6181 OF 2015
ASHOK S/O. RANGNATH TUWAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6182 OF 2015
RAJENDRA BHASKAR INGALE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6185 OF 2015
NIRMALA SAHADEO WANKHEDE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6195 OF 2015
APSING S/O. RUMA VASANE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6198 OF 2015
KANTILAL RAJBHAU SONWANE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 44 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6212 OF 2015
SANJAY JAGANNATH BHADANE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6215 OF 2015
DR.SATISH S/O ADHAR PATIL ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6291 OF 2015
PRADEEP RAMCHANDRARAO BHANSE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6294 OF 2015
BIKASHCHANDRA MUKUNDA ROY ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6295 OF 2015
PROF.DR.SUNIL S/O. SHANKARRAO BIDWAIK ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6297 OF 2015
BUDHAGHOSH M. LOHAKARE . ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 45 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6310 OF 2015
RAMESH RAMCHANDRA HALAMI ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6700 OF 2015
VANDANA NARAYANE RANE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6710 OF 2015
ANAND VIJAYRAOKUMAR WALANKIKAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6713 OF 2015
GODAVARI NARAYANRAO BHUSARE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6715 OF 2015
SUREKHA SANDASHIVRAO SHINDE AND OTH. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6717 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 46 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
VITHAL KISANRAO JADHAV & OTH. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6718 OF 2015
SADANAND VISHWESHWARRAO
AITHAL AND ANR. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6719 OF 2015
RAJENDRA MADHUKAR MARWADE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6720 OF 2015
VIJAYA DIGAMBARRAO GADAVE AND OTH. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6721 OF 2015
MARUTI MOTIRAM BAMNE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6722 OF 2015
SUBHAS KISANRAO SHINDE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 47 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
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)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6809 OF 2015
NANDKISHOR MADHAVRAO
MOGHEKAR AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6814 OF 2015
SIDDHARTH S/O NAMDEO MADARE, ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6818 OF 2015
DR. SHIVAJI VITHALRAO WAYBHASE, ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6824 OF 2015
WITH
Civil Application (St.) No. 22620 of 2015
DR. VINA W/O VIJAY PATIL AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STAT OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ...Respondent(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 48 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6829 OF 2015
DR.(MRS.) VIDYA SHRIKRISHNA BHARAMBE,
(KU. VIDYA M. CHOUDHARI), AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6843 OF 2015
VIVEK S/O DOMODHARRAO MURKUTEY ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6845 OF 2015
DR. KISHOR S/O MANIKRAO WATH. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6846 OF 2015
LEMCHAND SAMBHAJI DURGE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 6896 OF 2015
SHAHAJI DATTATRAYA SHINDE AND ANR. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 7352 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 49 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
PRAKASH RAOSAHEB SHINDE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 7447 OF 2015
MANISHA SHANTILAL GIRASE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE 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)
Versus
THE 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)
Versus
THE 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)
Versus
SHRI. SURYAKANT BHIMRAO KAMBLE AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 50 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8026 OF 2015
RAMESH SHESHRAO SONTAKKE & ANR. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8031 OF 2015
DR. ABHAY S/O MADHUKARRAO PATIL ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8039 OF 2015
DR. SATISH GALPAJI ALGUDE & ANR. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE UNIN OF INDIA ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8041 OF 2015
CHANDRSHEKKAR H. SAWARKAR AND ANR. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 27918 OF 2015
IN
Writ Petition NO. 8041 OF 2015
Smita Himmatrao Behere ...Applicant.
Vs.
Chandrashekkar H. Sawarkar & Anr. ...Respondents.
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8073 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 51 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
PROF. MADHUKAR S/O TUKARAM KSHIRSAGAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8076 OF 2015
DR. SURYAKANT S/O. NAGNATH KALASKAR & OTHR. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8077 OF 2015
PROF. ARJUN S/O. SITARAM PAWAR AND OTHR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8078 OF 2015
DR. SHAHURAJ S/O. SUGRIV MULA & OTHR. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8166 OF 2015
DR. ANIRUDDH S/O SOUNDAJI BANSODE, ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE SATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8167 OF 2015
KAKASAHEB S/O GANGADHAR
POKALE AND OTHR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE SATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 52 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8176 OF 2015
DR. RAMESH S/O BABURAO CHOUGULE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE SATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8182 OF 2015
SHAIKH ATIKH S/O USMAN ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE SATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8183 OF 2015
DR. SHARADKUMAR GANPATRAO
NARWADE & ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE SATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8184 OF 2015
SUBHAS SAMPAT WAGHMARE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE SATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8187 OF 2015
DNYANESHWAR BHIMRAO MAHAJAN AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE SATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8194 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 53 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
SADASHIV RAGHUNATH PAWAR & ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE SATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8197 OF 2015
DR. RATNA VYANKAT KIRTANE. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE SATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8198 OF 2015
SANGITA AJAY MAHAJAN, ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE SATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8208 OF 2015
CHANDRAKANT S/O ANGAD JAWALE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8211 OF 2015
RAJARAM S/O CHANDRAEN JADHAV AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8213 OF 2015
DR. KISHOR HIRAMAN NEHETE AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, ...Respondent(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 54 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8214 OF 2015
AVINASH SURESH MEHERKAR AND ANR. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPT. AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8254 OF 2015
DR. JOSHI RAJANI RAMCHANDRA ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8255 OF 2015
SMT. SULAKHE ABOLI AMOL ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF
MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8280 OF 2015
MR. BHAIKDAS S/O HARISHCHANDRA
GAIKWAD AND ANR. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8292 OF 2015
SAMBHAJI BABURAO BHAMBAR AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 55 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8301 OF 2015
SMT. HOMAIRA BADRUZZAMA
ANSARI AND ANR. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8320 OF 2015
SHRIDHAR NARSINGHRAO PATIL AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPT. AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8601 OF 2015
KESARKAR MARUTI AVABA ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8609 OF 2015
BALASAHEB NANASAHEB PAWAR AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.
OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8689 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 56 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
DR. BALASAHEB SAUBA JADHAV ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8690 OF 2015
SHRI. ADHIKARAO HINDURAO NIKAM ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8691 OF 2015
DR. BABASAHEB NANASAHEB RAVAN ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8692 OF 2015
SHRI. NAKADE DHANRAJ BAPURAO ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS....Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8706 OF 2015
NITIN BHIKA KHAIRNAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 57 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF
MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 8710 OF 2015
BALASAHEB MADHUKAR PATIL ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS. ...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)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 9687 OF 2014
SHIVAJI UNIVERSITY TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION (SUTA), THROUGH
GENERAL SECRETARY AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPT OF HIGHER AND TECHNICAL
EDUCATION AND OR ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 9994 OF 2014
CHANDORKAR SHRIKANT BHIKURAM ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH
JOINT DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 58 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 10166 OF 2013
BHARATIYA ELIGIBLE STUDENTS
AND TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
THROUGH PRESIDENT, SHRI. AJAY
DAREKAR AND ANR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 10543 OF 2014
SHINDE DNYANOBA GORAKH ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 10565 OF 2014
PRASHANT DATTATRAYA NAOGHARE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 930 OF 2015
IN
Writ Petition NO. 10565 OF 2014
Kishore P. Mali ….Applicant
Vs.
Prashant D. Naoghare ...Respondent.
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 10757 OF 2015
ANITA W/O. JEEVAN BODAKE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 59 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 10771 OF 2015
SHRI RAJENDRA VITHALRAO TIJARE & OTHR. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHAASHTRA & ANR. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 11242 OF 2014
MS. LONDHE MANGAL VISHNU ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 11243 OF 2014
MRS. PATIL MEGHA SANJAY ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 11244 OF 2014
SHRI. SHINDE ASHOK RAMCHANDRA ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 11245 OF 2014
SMT. PATIL MEGHA VIJAY ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 11261 OF 2014
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 60 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
MRS. RAJMATI RAJARAM PATIL ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 11263 OF 2014
MRS. PATIL VARSHA YASHODHAN ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 11307 OF 2014
SHRI. SAMPATRAO RAMCHANDRA PARLEKAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 11342 OF 2015
PROF. AMBHORE ASHOK GANGARAM AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 11392 OF 2013
DR. AVINASH B. SHENDRE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSIITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 11840 OF 2015
MAHARASHTRA NET SET
PATRATADHARAK SAMANVAY
SAMITI THROUGH ITS COORDINATOR AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 61 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDU. DEPT. AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 12397 OF 2015
NATIONAL FORUM FOR QUALITY
EDUCATION ALIAS RASHTRIYA
SHAIKSHANIK GUNWATTA MANCH
THRO.B.MUDE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 17682 OF 2015
PRASAD V. LIMAYE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 17689 OF 2015
SUNANDA NARAYAN CHAUDHARI AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 18428 OF 2015
DR. TANAJI KAMAJI UDGIRKAR (KAMBLE) AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 18732 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 62 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
DR. KOKANE PRAVIN MANOHARRAO AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 18973 OF 2015
PANDIT MAHADEO LAWAND AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE 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)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 21358 OF 2015
ZENDE PURNIMA UMESH ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 22459 OF 2015
SHARMILA P. NIRBHAVANE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 22624 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 63 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
VINODKUMAR KARBHARI PAWAR AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF
MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 22630 OF 2015
PRATIBHA GANESH CHAVAN AND ANR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.
OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 22634 OF 2015
DATTA KARBHARI DHAS AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 22635 OF 2015
DR. MANOJKUMAR SHIVAJIRAO MANE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE 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 ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 64 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
SECRETARY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 23737 OF 2015
SANJAY ATMARAM PATIL AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 24846 OF 2015
GANGADHAR GOVIND DHAGE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 29860 OF 2015
DR. SAMBHAJI MAHIPATI KALE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF
HIGHER EDU. AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 32837 OF 2015
KEDA NIMBA WAGH ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPT. OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition (ST) NO. 32982 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 65 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
ANSARI JAMEELA PASHA NISAR AHMAD ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Writ Petition NO. 12684 OF 2015
NAGPUR UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
THR. ITS SECRETARY, SHRI. ANIL
WAMANRAO DHAGE, & ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
THR. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE &
SPL. ASSTT. MANTRAL ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 333 OF 2015
DHIRAJ S/O RATILAL VAISHNAV. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHANDRA IYANGAR AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 334 OF 2015
RAJU SITARAM PAWAR AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
SANJAY KUMAR AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 335 OF 2015
DR.SURESH BHASKAR DHAKE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
SANJAYKUMAR AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 336 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 66 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
VISHWAS S/O NIMBA KOIL AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHANDRA IYANGAR AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 337 OF 2015
SUBHASH GIRDHAR SALUNKE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
SANJAYKUMAR AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 338 OF 2015
DR. KISHOR GOVIND KOLHE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
SANJAYKUMAR AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 339 OF 2015
IDRISKHAN S/O GOHARKHAN PATHAN AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHANDRA IYANGAR AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 340 OF 2015
SUNIL MADHUKAR NEVE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
SANJAY KUMAR AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 341 OF 2015
DR. SUNIL VIKRAM KUWAR AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
SANJAYKUMAR AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 67 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 342 OF 2015
SANJAY S/O RATAN KHAIRNAR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
SANJAYKUMAR AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 355 OF 2015
DR. NITIN CHINTAMAN KONGRE ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
DR P.R. GAIKWAD AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 356 OF 2015
SHRI RAJESH T SAWAI ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
DR P R GAIKWAD ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 388 OF 2015
RAMESH SHESHRAO SONTAKKE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
MR. SANJAY KUMAR, PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 389 OF 2015
SHRI SUNIL S/O RAOSAHEB RAUT ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
SHRI PRAKASH R. GAIKWAD AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 390 OF 2015
RAJENDRA RAKHAMAJI DANDAWATE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 68 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Versus
SHRI SANJAY CHAHANDE, SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 391 OF 2015
BIPINCHANDRA S/O. NARAYAN
SHINDE AND ANR ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
SHRI SANJAY CHAHANDE,
SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 395 OF 2015
BHASKAR S/O SHANKAR TEKALE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
SHRI. SANJAY CHAHANDE AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 396 OF 2015
PRAMILA D/O UDHAVRAO BHAGAT AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
SANJAYKUMAR CHAHANDE AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 397 OF 2015
DR. SURESH KAUTIK SHELAR AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
SHRI. SANJAY CHAHANDE AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 419 OF 2015
SATISH S/O. KISHANPRASAD TIWARI ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
DR. MOHAN KHATAL ...Respondent(s)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 69 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 445 OF 2015
SHRI VILAS RAMBHAU THAKRE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
MR. SANJAY CHAHANDE,
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 446 OF 2015
DR. SANJAY VASANTRAO
DESHMUKH AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
MR. SANJAY CHAHANDE, THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Petition NO. 447 OF 2015
SHRI VIJAY DALPATRAO KAPSE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
MR. SANJAY CHAHANDE, THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY AND ORS ...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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 70 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 71 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 72 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 73 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 74 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
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
2 By 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):
“1 On 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 &
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 75 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
College Teachers Organisation, (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.
2 In 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 Co
ordinate 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.
3 Accordingly, 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.
4 In 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 76 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
the Appellant to approach the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay. This Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn
with liberty granted as prayed for.
5 We 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.
6 Mr. 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.
7 Liberty 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.”
3 The 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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 77 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
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
4 All 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.
5 Due notices, as directed, have been given from time to
time starting from 16.07.2015/20082015, to the concerned parties,
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 78 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
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
6 By 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).
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 79 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
7 Admittedly, 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
8 The 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 80 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
relaxation/exemption have been granted by the UGC in mass,  on the
Universities/teachers/lecturers representations made, individually
and/or collectively/in mass.
9 The 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.
10 The following NonAgriculture Universities in Maharashtra
are also Respondents in these respective matters:
(1) University of Mumbai
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 81 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
(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,
Aurangabad.
(8) Shivaji University Kolhapur
(9) Solapur University, Solapur
(10) SNDT Women's University, Mumbai
(11) Gondwana University, Gadchiroli (Est.2011)
11 The colleges  are having following streams of subjects:
(1) Arts
(2) Science
(3) Commerce
(4) Education
(5) Social work
(6) Law
(7) Music
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 82 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
(8) Journalism & Mass Communication.
The parties Affidavitrejoinderwritten submissions are filed.
12 The contesting respective parties have filed
affidavits/additional affidavits,  rejoinders,  synopsis and the written
notes of Arguments.
Union of India/Central Government
13 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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 83 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Basic UGC Act provisions
14 The 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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 84 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
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 be
required of any person to be appointed to the teaching
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 85 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
staff of the University having regard to the branch of
education 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 co
ordination 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
17
clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) [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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 86 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Teachers/Lecturers without NET/SET TEST QUALIFICATION but
have been appointed by the Colleges/Institutions, affiliated to the
Universities.
15 We 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/Circulars
16 The 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 87 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
notified.
th
17.6.1987 Govt. of India Notification for implementation of 4
Pay Commission.
27.2.1989 State 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.
1989 Statutes framed by some of the Universities to adopt
the above G.R.
19.9.1991 U.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
23.10.1992 State Govt.’s Resolution adopting the above U.G.C.
Regulation
27.11.1992 State Govt.’s Resolution superseding the October,
1992 Resolution and asking Universities to issue
directives in accordance with the U.G.C. Regulation
of 1991
10.2.1993 UGC Circular granting exemption from doing NET/
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 88 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
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 31.3.1991
6.1993 U.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.
10.12.1993 State Govt.’s resolution adopting the U.G.C. Circular
dated 10.2.1993
2.2.1994 State 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.
28.4.1994 Govt. letter: Those teachers appointed without NET/
SET should be removed by 31.3.1996
8.6.1994 Govt. Resolution: Adopting the UGC Circular
exempting those candidates who have done M.Phil
upto 31.3.1992 from appearing for NET/ SET
14.7.1994 Govt. G.R. appointing Pune University as Nodal
Agency for conducting SET Exam, especially in
regional language.
st
21.6.1995 UGC 1 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.
22.12.1995 State Govt. Resolution:
(i) The date of 31.3.1996 for passing NET/ SET
removed;
(ii) Those who have come into service after
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 89 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
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;
(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.
22.5.1998 Govt. Resolution allowing annual increments to
those candidates who have not passed NET/ SET

27.7.1998 Central 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.
24.12.1998 UGC 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.
th
11.12.1999 Govt. Resolution adopting 5 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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 90 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
2000 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 91 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
and 11.12.1999 6000 non NET/ SET
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.
st
31.7.2002 U.G.C.’s 1 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.
26.7.2004 Govt. of Assam adopts NET/ SET qualification only
from 24.12.1998.

9.12.2004 UGC letter to Universities. When NET exemption is
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 92 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
granted the same should be on the footing that the
concerned teacher should acquire NET/ SET within
2 years of date of exemption.

nd
14.6.2006 U.G.C. carries out 2 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.
1.6.2009 U.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.
rd
30.6.2009 U.G.C. carries out 3 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.
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.
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.
th
12.8.2009 State Government adopts the 6 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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 93 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
26.8.2009 Agreement 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.
19.11.2009 G.R. issued incorporating the above condition.
15.12.2009 UGC replies to RTI query enclosing detailed
correspondence with State concerning exemption
from NET/ SET
30.6.2010 UGC Regulations for Minimum Qualifications and
th
Revised Pay Scales as per 6 Pay. Masters with 55%
and NET/ SET.
Career Advancement.
2011 Universities adopt the above Regulations of UGC.
10.6.2011 MFUCTO’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
8.7.2011 UGC’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.
12.8.2011 MFUCTO 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
16.8.2011 UGC’s letter to State Government communicating
the decision dated 8.7.2011
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 94 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
26.8.2011 UGC’s letter to MFUCTO (Petitioner) clarifying that
services for all purposes should be counted from the
time they were regularly appointed.
15.3.2012 UGC’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”.
2.5.2012 Meeting 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.
nd
13.6.2013 UGC minimum qualifications 2 Amendment
concerning Selection Process.
27.6.2013 Impugned G.R. of the State Government.
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:
(a) Lecturers/Teachers should have been
appointed on regular basis;
(b) Appointed as per prescribed procedure;
University should have approved their
appointments
(c)   University should have submitted their
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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 95 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
They will be covered by the 2005 Pension Scheme.
Common judgments cited by the parties
17 The learned counsel appearing for the parties have read
and referred the various judgments including the following
judgments:
1
1 State of Maharashtra & ors. v. Asha Bidkar and ors.
2
2 Beena Inamdar v. University of Pune & ors.
3
3 University of Delhi v. Raj Singh & ors.
4 Suresh Patilkhede v. Chancellor, University of Maharashtra and
4
ors.
5
5 T. P. George and ors v. State of Kerala & ors
6
6 Baburao Yadavrao Nareddiwar v. State of Maharashtra
7
7 Jagdish Prasad Sharma & ors v. State of Bihar & ors
8
8 Kalyani Mathivanan v. K. V. Jeyaraj & ors.
1 Order dt.25.03.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 10759 of 2013  by Supreme
Court
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
7 (2013) 8 SCC 633
8 (2015) 6 SCC 363
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 96 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
9
9 P. Suseela & ors v. University Grants Commission & ors.
10
10 Khandesh College Education Society v. Arjun Hari Narkhede
11
11 Dr. Mahesh Kulthe v. Union of India
12 Some judgments are referred in other paragraphs of this
judgment.
Relevant UGC Regulations and the State Circulars = positive
representation about the mandate of the NET/SET qualification
18 The 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
10 (2011) 7 SCC 172
11 Judgment dated 17.10.2013 in WP/10149/2010 (Aurangabad Bench)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 97 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw

Date	UGC Regulation<br>relating to qualification<br>of Teacher.	Qualification for Lecturer
13.6.1983	UGC (Qualifications<br>required of a person to<br>be appointed to a<br>teaching staff of a<br>University or other<br>Institution affiliated to it)<br>Regulation, 1982<br>Reg. 2 – Qualification as<br>per Schedule I to X.	M.Phil or degree beyond Master’s Level + Master<br>Degree (minimum 2nd Class)<br>Or<br>Master Degree (with higher 2nd Class) + First Degree<br>(with 2nd Class)<br>Or<br>Master Degree (with 2nd class) + First Degree (with 1st<br>Class)
19.9.1991	UGC (Qualifications<br>required of a person to<br>be appointed to the<br>teaching staff of the<br>University & Institutions<br>affiliated to it)<br>Regulation, 1991	Reg. 2 – Qualifications provided as per Schedule I<br>First Proviso – Relaxation in prescribed qualification<br>can only be made by University, with the prior approval<br>of UGC.<br>Second Proviso – These regulations shall not apply,<br>where selection through duly constituted Selection<br>Committee have been made prior to these regulations.<br>Schedule I – Clause (3)A<br>Good academic record + Master Degree (minimum 55%<br>marks or equivalent grade in relevant subject) +<br>NET/SLET.
21.6.1995	UGC (Qualifications<br>required of a person to<br>be appointed to the<br>teaching staff of a<br>University & Institutions<br>affiliated to it) (First<br>Amendment) Regulation,<br>1995	Proviso – Exemption from NET/SLET to candidates –<br>who submitted Ph.D. thesis or who passed M.Phil exam<br>prior to 31.12.1993.
4.4.2000	UGC (Minimum<br>qualifications required<br>for the appointment and<br>Career Advancement of<br>Teachers in Universities<br>& Institutions affiliated<br>to it) Regulation, 2000.<br>Reg. 2 – Qualification<br>provided as per<br>Annexure – 1.3.3<br>Lecturer.<br>First Proviso – Any<br>relaxation in prescribed	Good academic record + Master Degree (minimum 55%<br>marks or equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with<br>later grades O, A, B, C, D, E, F in relevant subject) +<br>NET/SLET.<br>Note – NET shall remain compulsory requirement even<br>for candidates with Ph.D. degree. But candidates who<br>submitted Ph.D. thesis or who passing M.Phil exam<br>prior to 31.12.1993, are exempted from NET.

::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 98 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw

31.7.2002<br>14.6.2006<br>11.7.2009	qualification can only be<br>made by UGC a) in a<br>particular subject in<br>which NET is not being<br>conducted or b) enough<br>number of candidates are<br>not available with NET<br>for specified period only.<br>This relaxation would<br>be given based on sound<br>justification and would<br>apply to Universities for<br>that particular subject for<br>specified period. No<br>individual applications<br>would be entertained.<br>Second Proviso – This<br>regulations shall not be<br>applicable where<br>candidates were selected<br>(having the then requisite<br>minimum qualification)<br>through duly constituted<br>Selection Committee<br>prior to enforcement of<br>these regulations.<br>UGC (Minimum<br>qualifications required<br>for the appointment and<br>Career Advancement of<br>Teachers in Universities<br>& Institutions affiliated<br>to it) (First Amendment)<br>Regulation, 2002.<br>UGC (Minimum<br>qualifications required<br>for the appointment and<br>Career Advancement of<br>Teachers in Universities<br>& Institutions affiliated<br>to it) (Second<br>Amendment) Regulation,<br>2006.<br>UGC (Minimum<br>qualifications required	Note substituted as under :-<br>NET shall remain compulsory requirement even for<br>candidates with Ph.D. degree. But candidates who<br>passing M.Phil exam prior to 31.12.1993 or who<br>submitted Ph.D. thesis prior to 31.12.2002, are<br>exempted from NET.<br>Note substituted as under :-<br>NET shall remain compulsory requirement even for<br>candidates with Ph.D. degree. But candidates who have<br>completed Ph.D. degree are exempted from NET for<br>teaching at PG Level & UG Level. Candidates who<br>completed M.Phil degree are exempted from NET for<br>teaching at UG level.<br>Note substituted as under :-<br>NET/SLET shall remain minimum eligibility condition

::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 99 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw

	for the appointment and<br>Career Advancement of<br>Teachers in Universities<br>& Institutions affiliated<br>to it) (Third Amendment)<br>Regulation, 2009.	for recruitment and appointment of lecturers. But,<br>candidates who completed Ph.D. degree [in compliance<br>with UGC (Minimum Standards & Procedure for Award<br>of Ph.D. Degree) Regulation, 2009] are exempted from<br>NET/SLET.
24.12.1998<br>5th Pay Scale<br>w.e.f.<br>1.1.1996<br>Not in<br>Government<br>Gazette	UGC notification on<br>revision of pay scales,<br>minimum qualifications<br>for appointment of<br>teachers in Universities<br>& Colleges and other<br>measures for<br>maintenance of<br>standards, 1998.	Letter<br>3.1 – Persons to be appointed to a teaching post only if<br>he fulfills minimum qualifications and other service<br>conditions as indicated in the notification.<br>3.2 – Relaxation in prescribed qualification only by<br>University, with prior approval of UGC.<br>Notification<br>3.1.0 – Direct recruitment – on the basis of merit<br>through all India advertisement and selection by duly<br>constituted Selection Committee of concerned<br>University and composition of Selection Committee as<br>prescribed by UGC Regulation.<br>3.2.0 – minimum qualifications will be those as<br>prescribed by UGC from time to time.<br>3.3.0 – minimum requirement :- good academic record +<br>Master’s degree (55%) + NET.<br>University can exempt Ph.D. holder from NET –<br>Minimum requirement of 55% should not be insisted<br>upon for existing incumbents who are already in<br>university system. But, 55% marks should be insisted<br>upon for those entering the system from outside and<br>those as entry point of lecturer.<br>4.4.1 - Good academic record + Master Degree<br>(minimum 55% marks or equivalent grade of B in the 7<br>point scale with later grades O, A, B, C, D, E, F in<br>relevant subject) + NET/SLET.
30.6.2010<br>In<br>Government<br>Gazette<br>dated<br>18.9.2010	UGC (minimum<br>qualifications for<br>appointment of teachers<br>& other academic staff in<br>Universities & Colleges<br>and other measures for<br>maintenance of standards<br>in Higher Education)<br>Regulation, 2010.	Regulation 1.3<br>First Proviso – Any candidate becomes eligible for<br>promotion under CAS (Career Advancement Scheme) in<br>terms of these regulations after 31.12.2008, the<br>promotion of such candidate shall be governed by the<br>provisions of these regulations.<br>Second Proviso – In the event, any candidate became<br>eligible for promotion under CAS prior to 31.12.2008,<br>the promotion of such candidate under CAS shall be<br>governed by UGC (minimum qualifications required for<br>appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in<br>Universities & Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations,<br>2000.<br>Regulation 2 – Minimum qualification as provided in<br>Annexure.<br>Annexure<br>3.0.0 – Recruitment & qualifications

::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 100 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw

Feb.2011<br>Gazetted on<br>9.4.2011<br>13.6.2013<br>Gazetted on<br>13.6.2013	UGC Regulations on<br>minimum qualifications<br>for appointment of<br>teachers & other<br>academic staff in<br>Universities & Colleges<br>and measures for<br>maintenance of standards<br>in Higher Education<br>(First Amendment)<br>Regulation, 2011.<br>UGC (Minimum<br>qualification for<br>appointment of teachers<br>& other academic staff in<br>Universities & Colleges<br>and measures for the<br>maintenance of standards<br>in Higher Education)<br>(Second Amendment)<br>Regulation, 2013.	3.1.0 – Direct recruitment – on the basis of merit<br>through all India advertisement and selection by duly<br>constituted Selection Committee of concerned<br>University and composition of Selection Committee as<br>prescribed by UGC Regulation.<br>3.2.0 – Minimum qualification will be those as<br>prescribed by UGC regulations.<br>3.3.0 – minimum requirement :- good academic record +<br>Master’s degree (55% or equivalent grade in a point<br>scale) + NET/SLET.<br>3.3.1 – NET/SLET/NET shall remain minimum<br>eligibility recruitment condition for appointment of<br>Assistant Professors.<br>But, candidates who completed Ph.D. degree [in<br>compliance with UGC (Minimum Standards &<br>Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulation,<br>2009] are exempted from NET/SLET.<br>Not relevant regarding qualification.<br>Not relevant regarding qualification.

::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 101 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Teachers/Lecturers are aware of requirement of
NET/SET qualification

19			After 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.”.

20			All 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 102 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
NET/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

V	ishwaprakash Laxman Sirsath v. State of Maharashtra	,

	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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 103 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
2003 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.

21			A 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 3	rd	and 4	th

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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 104 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
the 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.

22			The 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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 105 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Teachers/Lecturers were aware of requirement of NET/SET
23 There 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 non
availability 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.

24			We 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 106 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
candidates 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	.

25			We are not accepting the submission that 1991 Regulations

as issued under Section 26(1)(e)  and, therefore, are not governed by
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 107 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Section 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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 108 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Teacher with & without NET/SET/TEST/QUALIFICATION and their
stated equal rights?
26 We 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.
27 Various 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 109 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
qualification for different classes of teachers including additional
qualifications so prescribed by the UGC.
28 The 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 110 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
UGC 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.
29 The 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 111 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
find 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
30 The 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 112 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
2013.
NET/SET qualification compulsory ?
31 We 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 113 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
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”
32 The 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.

33			The 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

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.”

34			In present matters also, we are inclined to observe that the

provision was specifically made of relaxation. The UGC, at relevant
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 115 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
time, 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 Non
	NET/SET and related State pay scale and increments

35 We 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 116 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
parties, in no way, read to mean that such nonNET/SET persons be
treated equally with the candidates who posses the NET/SET
qualification.
36 The 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 117 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
examination.    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
13
ors , 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
37 It 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 118 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
nonNET/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.
38 Communication 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
39 The submission, based upon the case of Kalyani (supra)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 119 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
referring 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.

40			Both 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 :
“27 From 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 120 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
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)
62 In 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 121 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
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.

41			In 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 122 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
possessed the NET/SET qualification. They are bound by those
Policies and the conditions.
42 The 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.

43			We 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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 123 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw

44			Reliance 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 the

order 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
45 After going through the documents so placed on record,
including the basic qualification and  regulations, we have noted that
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:48 :::

dgm 124 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
the 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
46 We 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 125 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
NET/SET in time.
University Statute cannot be read in isolation

47			The 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.
48 We 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 126 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
qualification is for the excellence of education.
49 The 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 India's stand – UGC has no power to grant exemption

50 The 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 127 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
power 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 128 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
be read to mean that the UGC has no power of “relaxation” in
qualification.  The Rules/Regulations specifically prescribe such power.
51 We 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.
52 The 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.
53 The 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
14
Commission v. Sadhna Chaudhari ,   cannot be the reason and is of no
14 (1996) 10 SCC 536
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 129 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
assistance to grant the relief so prayed as facts and circumstances are
different.

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
and appointments of lecturers/teachers in
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.

55			The 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 130 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
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.

15		Similar 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.

17		The 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

::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 131 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw

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.

22		We 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.”

56 The 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 132 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
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.
57 The 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, including judgment dated 20.02.2002 in
V ishwaprakash (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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 133 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw

58			The 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 non
NET/SET teachers appointed between 19.09.1991 and 3.4.2000.

59			The 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 134 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
above.  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.

60			The 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.

61			In Dr. Mahesh Kulthe, the Division Bench based upon

15
Asha Bidkar vs. State of Maharashtra , including the other
judgments so referred, has quashed and set aside the communication
15 2014 (1) All MR 116
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 135 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
referring 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.
62 A 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.

63			All the appointments made during the period 1991 to

2000 have been protected by the State. Therefore, the decision in
16
Sudhir Sharadrao Hunge v. State of Maharashtra, and/or judgment
162010 (4) Mh. L. J. 572
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 136 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
17
in Atul Suresh Patil v. The State of Maharashtra 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.

64			The 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.

65			A 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 137 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
considering 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.

66			In	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
67 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 :

Sr.<br>No.	Dates	Events
1	12.11.08	Direction under Sec.20 of UGC Act, 1956 issued by<br>Ministry of Human Resources Development, Govt. of

::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 138 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw

		India to UGC (i) to frame appropriate Regulations<br>within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of this<br>order prescribing that qualifying in NET/SLET shall<br>generally be compulsory … & (ii) that a Degree of<br>PhD Awarded by the University shall be in compliance<br>with the procedure prescribed under the UGC<br>Regulation.
2	11/7/2009	UGC issued Regulations in pursuance of the above<br>mentioned Direction issued by Government of<br>India(GOI for short); providing thereby thus (i) NET/<br>SLET shall remain minimum condition for recruitment<br>and appointment of Lecturer in<br>Universities/Colleges/Institutions; (iii) Proviso that<br>Candidate for being Awarded PhD Degree will have to<br>ensure compliance with “UGC (minimum Higher<br>Standards and procedure for Award of PhD Degree)<br>Regulation 2009.
3	30.03.2010	A further Directive under Sec 20 issued by MHRD<br>Ministry Government of India under Sec 20 of UGC<br>Act, 1956; listing therein 3 clauses thus; (i) UGC shall<br>not take up specific cases for exemption from the<br>application of 2009 NET/Regulation after the said<br>Regulations have come into force….. for app ointment<br>as Lecturers in Universities/ Colleges/Institutions; (ii)<br>that appropriate Amendment to the 2nd Proviso to<br>Clause (2) of the UGC 2000 Regulation shall be<br>made by UGC to give full effect to the policy<br>direction of the Central Government dated 12.11.2008,<br>within 30 days from the date of issue of present<br>direction; (iii) that the decision taken in its 468th<br>meeting held on 23.02.2010 vide Agenda Items 6.04<br>and 6.05 to grant Specific Exemptions from the<br>applicability of NET shall not be implemented …….
4	18/9/2010	Pursuant to the aforementioned Directive, UGC framed<br>2010 Regulations, incorporating the aforestated<br>stipulations.
5.	12.08.2010<br>&<br>27.09.2010	UGC passed 2 Resolutions at its 471st meeting held on<br>12.08.2010 and 472nd Meeting held on 27.09.2010<br>that the said Regulations are prospective in nature; as<br>more particularly set out in those Regulations.
6.	03.11.2010	Government of India issued a (Demi-official) D.O.

::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 139 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw

		Letter dated 03.11.201 disagreeing with the aforestated<br>decision of UGC and whereby it was stated that a<br>Candidate seeking appointment for the Post of Asst<br>professor /Lecturer must fulfill the minimum<br>Eligibility condition of having passed NET Test.
7	08.07.2011	UGC held its 479th meeting whereat it took a decision<br>to grant NET/SLET Exemption to the Teachers<br>appointed on regular basis between September 19,<br>1991 and till 03.04.2000 in the State of Maharashtra;<br>based on 1991 and 1998 UGC Regulations in view of<br>various representations received from the Universities<br>in Maharashtra as more particularly set-out in the said<br>resolution. Incidentally, the said representations also<br>made reference to certain Judicial Orders passed by<br>this Hon’ble Court.
8.	16.08.2011	A communication sent by UGC to Government of<br>Maharashtra, regarding the aforementioned UGC<br>Resolution
9.	24th<br>Aug,2011	UGC held its 480th meeting : wherein proceedings of<br>the aforementioned 479th Meeting were confirmed;<br>and wherein again the then Secretary, MHRD GOI,<br>was present and at both the said UGC meetings; there<br>was no observation made on behalf of MHRD, Govt of<br>India on the exemption issue.
10.	6th Sept<br>2011	A communication sent by UGC about the<br>aforementioned 479th Meeting to the Personal<br>Secretary of the then Human Resources Minister, &<br>Secretary of MHRD, Govt, of India . At the said 479th<br>Meeting held on 8.7.2011, Ministry of HRD ,<br>Government of India (GOI), was represented by the<br>then Secretary (Higher Education). No observation<br>made at the said meetings on behalf of MHRD; GOI
11.	18.6.12	Letter sent by the Dy. Secretary MHRD, GOI, to the<br>Secretary UGC enclosing herewith an application<br>------A reference received from Prof. Santosh Kumar<br>M. Patil
12	27.12.2013	A reply to the aforementioned MHRD, GOI letter dated<br>18/6/12 sent by UGC Secretary to Joint Secretary<br>(Higher Education) Ministry of HRD, GOI.
13	17th Oct,<br>2013	Judgment and order passed by Aurangabad Bench High<br>Court in Writ Petition No. 10149 of 2010 wherein

::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 140 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw

		Union of India was also a party. The authorities to<br>consider Petitioners cases for granting exemption….<br>Without being tramelled by direction dated 30/3/2010<br>issued by HRD Ministry (para 31 of the said Judgment<br>– direction dated 30/3/2010 was issued u/s 20 of UGC<br>Act, 1956. No review filed against the said order nor<br>SLP filed.
14	9th Oct,<br>2014	MHRD Govt. of India letter for UGC referring to<br>earlier D.O. letter dated 21/04/2014 in connection with<br>the said Judgment of Aurangabad Bench in<br>WP.No.10149/10 (Dr. Mahesh S/o P. Kulthe v/s. UOI,<br>UGC & Ors and asking UGC to respond to contempt<br>Petitions.
15	15th<br>Aug,2015	A detailed order passed by UGC in compliance with<br>the said Judgment and order in WP.No.10149 of 2010<br>passed by the Aurangabad Bench as above ,mentioned<br>in sr no13.
16	31st July,<br>2013	494th UGC, meeting was held whereat UGC<br>commission approved and decided that all such cases<br>where faculty appointment were made by the college<br>prior to 2000 with prior approval of the affiliating<br>University, may considered for similar exemption.

68 The 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.
69 The affidavit filed by UGC in various matters also accept
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 141 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
that 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 non
NET/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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 142 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
70 We 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:
“29 I 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 Non
NET/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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 143 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
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.”

71			Strong 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 144 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
appointments 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.

72			The 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
73 Merely 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 145 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
to the NET/SET qualified teachers. We see there is nothing wrong
when the State Government has taken a policy decision to grant the

	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.

74			The 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	.

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.
18(2005) 13 SCC 606
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 146 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
Similar duties by NonNET/SET or with NET/SET = equal pay
scale & increment benefits.
75 The 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 burden
76 The 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 147 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
benefits 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.
77 It 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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 148 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw

78			As 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.

79			Respondent 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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 149 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw

80			Therefore, 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.

81			It 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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 150 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw

82			In view of above and in view of the judgment of Supreme

Court in	State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty	,

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.

“70		In 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/SET
candidates/lecturers/professors
83 The grant of continuity of service and regularisation by the
State though they have not acquired requisite qualification of
19 2011 (3) SCC 436
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 151 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
NE5T/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.
84 The Government (State Policy) (translation portion) (State
affidavit) decision is as under :
“14 Taking 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.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 152 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
15 For 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.
16 The 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.
17 Similarly such of the affected nonNET/SET
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 153 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
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.
18 Since 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.”
85 Considering 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 by
	High Court in Asha Bidkar


86			We 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 154 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
judgment 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.

87			There 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 155 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
reasons and keeping in mind that Appeals/SLPs are pending in
Supreme Court.

88			In 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
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

dgm 156 wp-2082-13 -judgment-with group-netset-15-1-16.sxw
matters, if any, at the earliest.

89			We 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.
90 We 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.
91 Therefore, the following order :
ORDER
1) It is declared that the
teachers/professors/lecturers/candidates who
have not acquired NET/SET/TEST qualification and
who are appointed during 24.10.1992 to 3.4.2000
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

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.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) In view of above, all the Writ Petitions, Contempt
Petitions and Civil Applications are dismissed
accordingly.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::

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.
(A. A. SAYED, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:13:49 :::