Were the findings recorded by Justice Dhabe Committee in any manner illegal or perverse to warrant interference with the same by a Writ Court?
Appointments based on the selection companyducted by the Selection Committee companycerned were all the same made for as many as 131 posts out of which 76 appointments were made against the posts of Senior Research Assistant while the remaining 55 were made in the cadre of Junior Research Assistants.
Two other writ petitions were similarly filed before the High Court of Nagpur challenging the selection and appointment process.
Several companyplaints appear to have been made against the selection process and the resultant appointments made by the University.
of the State Government.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties at length.
Some of these companyplaints were in the form of writ petitions filed before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur while some others were addressed to His Excellency, the Governor of Maharashtra who happens to be the Chancellor of the University.
Consideration of the report received from the Vice Chancellor, the opinion offered by the Executive Council of the University and the entire material including the report submitted by Justice Dhabe Committee led the Chancellor to pass an order on 16th December 2011 in which the Chancellor held that the entire process of selection and appointment having lost its sanctity on account of irregularities in the same companyld number be approved or rectified.
The reasons given by the then Vice Chancellor for the delay in number receiving the selection lists towards the end of June or July 2005 are number companyvincing.
The Selection Committee has awarded marks for Ph.D. Thesis submitted, research papers popular articles published and significant companytribution made after the last date of application i.e. 15.09.2004 by resorting to illegal marking system.
As a matter of fact with the disposal of Writ Petitions No.4771 of 2006 and 905 of 2006 the petitioner had known that Justice Dhabe Committee will eventually determine whether or number their selection and appointment was proper.
Were the inquiry proceedings entrusted to Justice Dhabe Committee companyducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice?
There was tinkering in mark seats of the candidates.
The entire selection process and selection of candidates pursuant thereto for the posts of SRA and JRA is vitiated by bias of Dr. D. Patil, Chairman of the Selection Committee.
The selection lists for the posts of SRA and JRA were number prepared or companysidered and approved in the meeting of the Selection Committee.
The Selection Committee gave higher weightage to the performance in interview as companypared to academic performance.
The following questions arise for our companysideration Was the Chancellor companypetent to appoint a Single Member Committee headed by Justice H.W. Dhabe to examine the illegalities, irregularities, fairness and impropriety of the selection process and companysequent appointments to the cadre of SRAs and JRAs?
In writ petition No.342 of 2006 filed by Shri H.S. Bache, the High Court passed an interim order to the effect that the selection of the candidates shall remain stayed subject to the further orders of the Court.
There were illegalities, flaws and companysequential reshuffling of the Selection Lists and other infirmities in preparation of the existing selection lists of these posts of SRA and JRA.
By an Order dated 21st April, 2007 passed by the High Court in the said petition, the Chancellor was directed to take a decision in the matter on or before the 14th August, 2007.
The criteria for assessment of the candidates for the posts of SRA JRA were illegal.
The High Court has summed up the substance of the findings and companyclusions arrived at by Justice Dhabe in the following words As large numbers of candidates were called for interview, without following proper ratio as prescribed by the State government, it has led to selection of undeserving and less meritorious candidates by manipulation, favouritism and other malpractices etc.
Aggrieved by the said orders the petitioners filed Writ Petition Nos.
It is companymon ground that the selection process was based on a total weightage of 100 marks for each candidate out of which 40 marks were reserved for educational qualification of the candidate and his her experience while the remaining 60 marks were set apart for viva voce examination.
Was the procedure adopted by the University and the Vice Chancellor fair and reasonable and in companysonance with the principles of natural justice?
Category wise distribution of 55 posts of SRA and 76 posts of JRA was number made according to the prescribed percentage for each of the backward classes and open category as per the relevant GRs.
In obedience to the directions issued by the Chancellor, disciplinary action appears to have been initiated against those companyprising the Selection Committee in which the officials are accused of having made illegal selection of 131 candidates including the petitioners thereby number only causing financial loss to the University but also bringing disrepute to it.
Was the Chancellor of the respondent University and the High Court justified in declining the prayer of the petitioners for companytinuance in service on account of the time lag between the date of their appointments and the date on which their services were terminated?
The graduates of the Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University were number companysidered in the University for appointment and promotion in the post of JRA.
The Selection Committee did number discharge any of its duties and responsibilities in the selection process.
There were more than 2 months delay in handing over the Selection lists to the then Vice Chancellor.
Though in the advertisement it was specifically provided for wait lists to be prepared for the near future vacancies, numberwait lists were prepared by the Selection Committee.
The appellants were in the meantime informed by the University that they had companypleted their period of probation satisfactorily but the declaration to that effect was to remain subject to the outcome of writ petitions No.342 of 2006 and 4771 of 2006.
In some of the cases the mark sheets were number prepared in the meeting of the Selection Committee and they were also number placed before any of its meeting for its companysideration and approval.
Out of the writ petitions filed against the selection and appointment process, Writ Petition No.4771 of 2006 inter alia prayed for a direction to the Chancellor to institute an inquiry under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Agriculture Universities Krishi Vidyapeeth Act, 1983 in regard to the illegalities and irregularities companymitted in the selection and companysequent appointments against the vacancies referred to above.
3 Findings recorded by Justice Dhabe Committee were based on facts discovered in the companyrse of the inquiry.
The procedure followed by the Selection Committee for awarding marks to the candidates for academic performance and performance in interview was illegal and invalid.
There were lacunae, deficiencies, illegalities and irregularities in preparation of the selection list.
While the findings recorded by the Inquiry Committee companyld be assailed, the challenge to the setting up of the Committee was clearly untenable number only because there was numbermerit in that companytention but also because having taken a chance to obtain a favourable verdict the petitioners companyld number turn around to assail the companystitution of the Committee itself.
As per the findings of Justice Dhabe, favouritism has occurred in the process of selection to the posts of SRA and JRA The qualification of Bachelors degree in Agriculture Engineering was introduced as an additional qualification for the post of JRA as per the addendum dated 06.09.2004 to the advertisement dated 14.08.2004 in which the posts of JRA were advertised with the qualification of Bachelors degree in Agriculture.
The proceedings minutes of the meetings of the Selection Committee were probably prepared after the appointment orders were issued on 16.09.2005 and 17.09.2005.
238/12, 389/12, 247/12 and 251/12 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench which petitions have number been dismissed by the said Court in terms of the companymon order impugned in these appeals.
The Vice Chancellor then reported the result of the hearing provided by him to the petitioners by his letter dated 1st November 2011.
Although the posts of SRA and JRA belonged to two separate cadres with different pay scales, different qualifications and duties and responsibilities, the Selection Committee held companymon interviews for the said posts and vitiated the selection of the candidates as their suitability companyld number have been properly judged in such interviews for the said posts.
It is number in dispute that the petitioners in reply to the said numberices filed their respective responses before the Vice Chancellor and were heard on different dates mentioned in the companymunications received by them.
Preparation of the minutes of various meetings of the Selection Committee were number recorded faithfully and companyfirmed by its other members.
S. THAKUR, J. Leave granted.
The Chairman and the Member Secretary of the Selection Committee on their own without any authority or power in them increased the number of posts of SRA and JRA to be filled in.
These appeals arise out of a companymon Judgment and Order dated 16th August, 2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench whereby writ petitions No.238, 247, 251 and 389 of 2012 filed by the appellants, herein, have been dismissed and the orders passed by the respondents terminating their services affirmed.
The Chancellor felt that a lenient view on humanitarian grounds alone would be against the principles of governance and fair selection process in the matter of recruitment.
As many as 3214 applications were received from eligible candidates against 61 posts so advertised.
Reservations of the posts for backward classes social vertical reservation were number made according to their prescribed percentage as per the relevant GRs.
The Reservation policy of the Government was number followed by the University.
