AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER: NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]
Rule. Rule made returnable forth. Heard finally by the consent of the parties at admission stage.
Respondent No.5 is served through Court service and the University has also issued notice to respondent No.5 through RPAD, however, he has failed to appear.
By this petition, petitioner challenges selection of respondent No.5 for admission to the Ph.D. program from NT category for Political Science subject and seeks direction to respondent No.2 University to give admission to the petitioner for the said course.
Petitioner holds M.A. degree in Political Science subject. She belongs to NT-C category. Petitioner applied for Ph.D. Entrance Test (PET), pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent No.3 on 01/07/2024. Petitioner has secured 59.80 marks, whereas respondent No.5 who belongs to VJ-A category, has secured 52.20 marks. It is the contention of petitioner that respondent University has committed error in interchanging NT-B category with VJ-A category.
Respondent University by relying on the Government Resolution dated 05/12/1994 contends that the said Government Resolution provides for interchanging the seats between VJ-A and NT-B and therefore, since no candidate from NT-B category was available, respondent No.5 who belongs to VJ-A category was selected against the said seat. It is further contended that no seats were reserved for NT-C category as per the Backward Class Cell chart and NT-C reservation comes after NT-B. Hence, the petitioner was not considered for the said seat.
Learned advocate for petitioner has rightly relied upon the Maharashtra State Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2001. Section 4 of the said Act provides for reservation. Sub-section 3 therein is as follows:-
“Section 4(3)
The reservation specified for the categories mentioned at serial numbers (3) to (6) (both inclusive) in the table under sub-section (2) shall be inter transferable. If suitable candidates for the posts reserved for any of the said categories are not available in the same recruitment year, the posts shall be filled by appointing suitable candidates from any of the other said categories.”
Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court [Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge and Y. G. Khobragade, JJ.] in Writ Petition No.14522/2023 dated 10/01/2024, wherein it is held:-
“11.Vide order dated 13 March, 2012 passed in W.P. No. 6393 of 2011, Baban Pralhadrao Kadre Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., the Coordinate Bench of this Court [Coram: B.R. Gavai (as His Lordship then was) and Sunil P. Deshmuk, JJ.] observed as under:
“1.The petitioner challenges the selection of respondent no.5. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent no. 5 had never applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Sociology, which was reserved for NT-B category. He further submitted that respondent no.5 does not belong to NT-B category, but belong to NT-D category.
2.The perusal of the report of the selection committee, which also includes the Government nominee, Vice Chancellor’s nominees and subject experts, who are independent persons, would reveal that in the selection process respondent no.5 has secured much more marks as compared to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that an inter-changeability from NT-B category and NT-D category is not prohibited by law.”
12.In an another order dated 20 March, 2007 passed in W.P. No.6968 of 2006, Sanjay s/o Kondibarao Kolekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., the Coordinate Bench of this court [Coram: Naresh H. Patil (as His Lordship then was) and R. M. Borde, JJ.] held that, as per Government Resolution the post reserved for NT-A, B, C, D categories are interchangeable.
13.Therefore, considering the facts of the present case as well as the settled law that post reserved for NT-A, B, C, D categories are interchangeable, hence, refusal to grant approval for appointment of the Petitioner by the Respondent No.3 - University under impugned orders dated 23 August, 2023 and 26 September, 2023 is contrary to Sub-clause 4 to the 2 proviso of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Act No. VIII of 2004 as well as Government Resolution.”
In view of the above observations and Section 4(3), the University ought to have followed the said provision by interchanging categories of NT – A, B, C, D inter se. When there is Act, holding the field the University has committed error in relying upon the old Government Resolution of 1994. Admittedly, the Act, has come into force in the year 2004. Hence, the action of University of selecting respondent No.5 who has secured less marks than the petitioner and belongs to VJ-A category, cannot be sustained.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Selection of respondent No.5 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent University is directed to admit petitioner for the Ph.D. course in Political Science subject. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.