Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Rakesh Ramteke, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent University to issue an appointment order for the post of Reader in Computer Science, based on a selection process initiated by an advertisement dated 13 July 2007. The petitioner was placed second in the select list, while one Shri Pradip Kawaduji Bute was placed first. Bute's appointment was challenged before the Chancellor of the University, who on 7 August 2009 held that Bute's appointment was illegal and directed his termination. Bute's subsequent writ petition against the Chancellor's order was dismissed. The petitioner then contended that since Bute's appointment was set aside, he should be appointed as the next candidate in the select list. The court examined Section 76 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, which governs the selection and appointment of university teachers. The court noted that the selection committee had recommended Bute as the first candidate, and the petitioner as the second. However, the Chancellor found that Bute's appointment was not legal, implying that the selection process itself was flawed. The court held that the cancellation of Bute's appointment did not confer any right on the petitioner to be appointed, as the select list could not be acted upon after the first candidate's appointment was set aside. The court further observed that the select list had lapsed due to the passage of time and the circumstances. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and directed the University to initiate a fresh selection process for the post of Reader in Computer Science.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Right to Appointment - Section 76 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 - The petitioner, who was second in the select list for the post of Reader, sought appointment after the first candidate's appointment was set aside by the Chancellor. The court held that the cancellation of the first candidate's appointment did not create a right in the petitioner to be appointed, as the selection process itself was vitiated and the select list could not be acted upon. The court directed the University to initiate a fresh selection process. (Paras 1-6) B) Service Law - Select List - Lapse of Select List - Section 76 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 - The court observed that the select list had lapsed due to the passage of time and the cancellation of the appointment of the first candidate. Therefore, the petitioner could not claim appointment based on a stale select list. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a candidate placed second in a select list is entitled to appointment when the appointment of the first candidate is set aside, without a fresh selection process.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The University is directed to initiate a fresh selection process for the post of Reader in Computer Science.
Law Points
- Right to appointment
- Select list
- Cancellation of appointment
- Fresh selection
- Section 76 of the Maharashtra Universities Act
- 1994
