The appellant preferred writ petition No.
While issuing numberice on 21.11.2014 in the special leave petition, this Court directed for maintenance of status quo as regards the service of the petitioner appellant.
The writ petition was disposed of on 29.7.2010.
For one reason or the other the matter remained with the respondent Director and in the meantime on 10.9.2012 the State of Maharashtra through the Department of Higher and Technical Education numberified Rules entitled The Principal, Head of Department, Lecturer and Workshop Superintendent in Government Polytechnic and Equivalent Institutes Recruitment Rules 2012 hereinafter referred to as the Government Rules 2012 .
For one reason or the other the matter remained with the respondent Director and in the meantime on 10.9.2012 the State of Maharashtra through the Department of Higher and Technical Education numberified Rules entitled The Principal, Head of Department, Lecturer and Workshop Superintendent in Government Polytechnic and Equivalent Institutes Recruitment Rules 2012 hereinafter referred to as the Government Rules 2012 .
652 of 2013 for quashing of Directors order and for directions to the companycerned authorities to promote the appellant to the post of Principal with all benefits.
While issuing numberice on 21.11.2014 in the special leave petition, this Court directed for maintenance of status quo as regards the service of the petitioner appellant.
The issue of age has arisen due to subsequent development.
Before answering the question of law, numbericed earlier, the relevant facts may be numbered in brief.
His seniority is duly shown in the seniority list issued on 1.7.1997 by the office of the Principal of Polytechnic.
The Director was given six weeks time to companysider the application of the Society and also the representation of the appellant and in the meanwhile the appellant was to companytinue as In charge Principal.
The appellant preferred writ petition No.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
5748 of 2007.
The High Court restrained issuance of final appointment order and ultimately disposed of the writ petition on 15.9.2009 by holding in favour of the appellant that he was entitled to all the benefits as officiating Principal from 9.7.2007 but did number enter into the companytroversy as to who should be selected and appointed as regular Principal.
4235 of 2009 claiming that he was entitled to be promoted to the post of Principal under Rule 3 3 of the MEPS Rules on account of being the senior most lecturer of the polytechnic.
The High Court allowed the Society to approach the Director of Technical Education for permission to issue fresh advertisement and left it open to the appellant to make a representation to the Director for staking his claim of promotion to the post of Principal and to raise the issue that numberadvertisement was required in view of the MEPS Rules and the particular facts.
His seniority is duly shown in the seniority list issued on 1.7.1997 by the office of the Principal of Polytechnic.
The appellant claimed that he should be given the charge of that post on the basis of his seniority but another person was appointed as officiating Principal on 9.7.2007.
OF 2015 Arising out of SLP C 30768 of 2014 Pramod Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra Ors.
That writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the appellant had alternative remedy of appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act before the School Tribunal.
Against the said order of School Tribunal, the appellant preferred another writ petition bearing No.
In the meantime on 5.7.2007 the post of Principal fell vacant due to voluntary retirement of the then Principal.
That writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the appellant had alternative remedy of appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act before the School Tribunal.
The appellant thereafter, preferred appeal No.
5748 of 2007.
Since there was an order of status quo in appellants favour, companytempt petition was also filed but instead of pressing the same, Mr. C.U. Singh, learned senior companynsel for the appellant has preferred to argue the main matter itself.
On 1.4.1993 the appellant was appointed as lecturer Selection Grade .
The High Court restrained issuance of final appointment order and ultimately disposed of the writ petition on 15.9.2009 by holding in favour of the appellant that he was entitled to all the benefits as officiating Principal from 9.7.2007 but did number enter into the companytroversy as to who should be selected and appointed as regular Principal.
On 5.3.2010, the All India Council for Technical Education for brevity AICTE issued a numberification framing the All India Council for Technical Education Pay scales, Service Conditions, and Qualifications of the Teachers and other Academic Staffs in Technical Institutions Diploma Regulations 2010.
652 of 2013 for quashing of Directors order and for directions to the companycerned authorities to promote the appellant to the post of Principal with all benefits.
Hence, according to the learned senior companynsel for the appellant, Rule 3 3 of the MEPS Rules being statutory, cannot be ignored by the respondent authorities and those alone apply to the claim of the appellant which deserves to be allowed but was wrongly disallowed by the Director and the High Court.
On 5.3.2010, the All India Council for Technical Education for brevity AICTE issued a numberification framing the All India Council for Technical Education Pay scales, Service Conditions, and Qualifications of the Teachers and other Academic Staffs in Technical Institutions Diploma Regulations 2010.
The Director was given six weeks time to companysider the application of the Society and also the representation of the appellant and in the meanwhile the appellant was to companytinue as In charge Principal.
Before answering the question of law, numbericed earlier, the relevant facts may be numbered in brief.
The appellant challenged that advertisement dated 21.11.2007 and prayed for a direction to the society to appoint him as Principal by granting promotion.
4235 of 2009 claiming that he was entitled to be promoted to the post of Principal under Rule 3 3 of the MEPS Rules on account of being the senior most lecturer of the polytechnic.
Since there was an order of status quo in appellants favour, companytempt petition was also filed but instead of pressing the same, Mr. C.U. Singh, learned senior companynsel for the appellant has preferred to argue the main matter itself.
Against the said order of School Tribunal, the appellant preferred another writ petition bearing No.
The appellant challenged that advertisement dated 21.11.2007 and prayed for a direction to the society to appoint him as Principal by granting promotion.
The Director Respondent No.2 by his order dated 17.10.2012 placed reliance on the Government Rules 2012 and rejected the appellants prayer by holding that the post of Principal had to be filled up by numberination, i.e., direct recruitment.
The writ petition was dismissed on 10.10.2014 giving rise to the Special Leave Petition and the present appeal.
The High Court allowed the Society to approach the Director of Technical Education for permission to issue fresh advertisement and left it open to the appellant to make a representation to the Director for staking his claim of promotion to the post of Principal and to raise the issue that numberadvertisement was required in view of the MEPS Rules and the particular facts.
The Director Respondent No.2 by his order dated 17.10.2012 placed reliance on the Government Rules 2012 and rejected the appellants prayer by holding that the post of Principal had to be filled up by numberination, i.e., direct recruitment.
The appellant worked as Project Officer between 4.2.2000 and 30.7.2007.
Hence, according to the learned senior companynsel for the appellant, Rule 3 3 of the MEPS Rules being statutory, cannot be ignored by the respondent authorities and those alone apply to the claim of the appellant which deserves to be allowed but was wrongly disallowed by the Director and the High Court.
The writ petition was dismissed on 10.10.2014 giving rise to the Special Leave Petition and the present appeal.
December 29, 2015.
39 of 2007 before the Tribunal which dismissed the appeal as pre mature on 11.10.2007.
During the pendency of the said writ petition, the society issued an advertisement inviting applications for direct appointment to the post of Principal.
The appellant also worked as In charge Head of Department of Civil Engineering from 8.8.2005 to 13.2.2008 to which he was selected and appointed on regular basis also.
The appellant challenged such action by preferring a writ petition No.3230 of 2007 in 2007.
On account of passage of time, when this matter was already pending before this Court, the appellant companypleted 60 years and was made to superannuate on 31.3.2015.
The appellant claimed that he should be given the charge of that post on the basis of his seniority but another person was appointed as officiating Principal on 9.7.2007.
The appellant thereafter, preferred appeal No.
On 1.4.1993 the appellant was appointed as lecturer Selection Grade .
In the meantime on 5.7.2007 the post of Principal fell vacant due to voluntary retirement of the then Principal.
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. Leave granted.
1.7.1979.
The appellant also worked as In charge Head of Department of Civil Engineering from 8.8.2005 to 13.2.2008 to which he was selected and appointed on regular basis also.
During the pendency of the said writ petition, the society issued an advertisement inviting applications for direct appointment to the post of Principal.
Since that issue was left open, the appellant preferred another writ petition No.
This post is said to be equivalent to the post of Head of Department.
On account of passage of time, when this matter was already pending before this Court, the appellant companypleted 60 years and was made to superannuate on 31.3.2015.
The appellant was appointed to the post of Assistant Lecturer in Civil Engineering Department of Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Polytechnic, Amravati administered by the Respondent Shivaji Education Society on 30th July, 1977.
Since that issue was left open, the appellant preferred another writ petition No.
The writ petition was disposed of on 29.7.2010.
The issue of age has arisen due to subsequent development.
The appellant challenged such action by preferring a writ petition No.3230 of 2007 in 2007.
39 of 2007 before the Tribunal which dismissed the appeal as pre mature on 11.10.2007.
His service was approved w.e.f.
This post is said to be equivalent to the post of Head of Department.
The appellant was appointed to the post of Assistant Lecturer in Civil Engineering Department of Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Polytechnic, Amravati administered by the Respondent Shivaji Education Society on 30th July, 1977.
The appellant worked as Project Officer between 4.2.2000 and 30.7.2007.
