The Bombay High Court, Dr. Shankar Ambhore challenged the disqualification of his Senate membership following his appointment as Principal of Kohinoor Arts, Commerce, and Science College. Initially elected to the Senate as a representative from the Teachers’ Constituency under Section 28(2)(r) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, his appointment as Principal triggered automatic cessation of his membership according to Section 63 of the Act. The court upheld the disqualification, clarifying that transitioning from a "Teacher" to a "Principal" changes the constituency represented, thereby voiding the original membership. The decision underscores the strict categorization required for Senate elections and the legal implications of changing roles within university governance.

Introduction

The Bombay High Court recently addressed the issue of disqualification of Senate membership for Dr. Shankar Ambhore. The case revolved around whether his appointment as Principal disqualified him from continuing as a Senate member elected from the Teachers' Constituency.

Background

Dr. Shankar Ambhore was elected as a Senate member from the Teachers’ Constituency under Section 28(2)(r) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. However, upon being appointed as Principal, the University deemed his membership invalid, citing Section 63 of the Act.

Legal Provisions

• Section 28(2)(r) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016: This provision defines the eligibility for Senate membership from the Teachers’ Constituency, excluding Principals.
• Section 63: This section stipulates that if a member ceases to represent the constituency from which they were elected, they automatically lose their membership.

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner's Argument: Dr. Ambhore argued that his appointment as Principal did not strip him of his identity as a teacher, and hence, his Senate membership should continue.
• Respondents' Argument: The University argued that the Act clearly distinguishes between "Teachers" and "Principals," and once Dr. Ambhore transitioned to the Principal category, he ceased to be a representative of the Teachers' Constituency.

Court’s Analysis

The court focused on the statutory interpretation of Sections 28 and 63. It emphasized that the Act categorically separates representation for Teachers and Principals, and moving from one category to another results in automatic cessation of Senate membership. The court dismissed precedents cited by the petitioner, distinguishing those cases on the basis that the constituencies represented in those cases remained unchanged.

Judgment

The court ruled in favor of the University, upholding the disqualification of Dr. Ambhore's Senate membership. It concluded that once he became a Principal, he could no longer represent the Teachers’ Constituency, making his membership void under Section 63.

Conclusion

This judgment reaffirms the importance of constituency-based representation in university governance. It also clarifies that changes in a member's professional role can directly impact their eligibility to hold elected positions, underscoring the need for strict adherence to statutory classifications.