Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Prof. Bandu Baburao Meshram and Prof. Abhay Bambole, were professors at Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute (VJTI), an autonomous engineering college affiliated to the University of Mumbai. The institute issued an advertisement on 29 March 2012 inviting applications for the post of Director, equivalent to Principal. The petitioners applied on 9 and 13 April 2012, but later discovered that their colleagues had received call letters while they had not. Upon inquiry, they were informed that they did not meet the qualifications prescribed by the Board of Governors. The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to restrain the selection process and to be included. They argued that the qualifications for the post of Director should be as per the University statute for Principal, which they claimed to possess. The respondents contended that the institute, being autonomous, had the power to prescribe its own qualifications, and the petitioners did not meet those. The court analyzed the provisions of University Statutes 593 to 642 regarding autonomous status and held that an autonomous college can prescribe its own qualifications for the post of Director, which are not subject to the University statute. The court found that the petitioners did not possess the qualifications required by the advertisement, such as a Ph.D. and a minimum of 10 years of teaching experience. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the exclusion was lawful and the writ was not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Autonomous College - Qualifications for Director - University Statute 593-642 - The petitioners, professors at an autonomous institute, challenged their exclusion from the selection process for the post of Director. The court held that the institute, having been granted autonomous status under University Statutes 593 to 642, is entitled to prescribe its own qualifications for the post of Director, which are different from those prescribed for Principal under the University statute. The petitioners did not possess the qualifications prescribed by the Board of Governors, and therefore, their exclusion was justified. (Paras 1-10) B) Education Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Article 226 of Constitution of India - The court held that a writ petition challenging a selection process is not maintainable if the petitioner does not meet the eligibility criteria prescribed by the employer. The petitioners failed to demonstrate that they possessed the requisite qualifications as per the advertisement, and thus, no fundamental right was infringed. (Paras 11-15) C) Education Law - Interpretation of Statutes - University Statute vs. Autonomous College Regulations - The court clarified that the University statute prescribing qualifications for Principal applies only to affiliated colleges and not to autonomous institutions. The autonomous institute has the power to frame its own rules and regulations for appointment to the post of Director, and the University cannot impose its standards. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, as professors in an autonomous institute, are entitled to be considered for the post of Director despite not possessing the qualifications prescribed by the Board of Governors, and whether the University statute prescribing qualifications for Principal applies to the autonomous institute.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Autonomous college can prescribe qualifications for Director different from University statute
- University statute applies only to affiliated colleges not autonomous institutions
- Internal candidates not automatically entitled to be considered if they do not meet prescribed qualifications
- Writ petition against selection process not maintainable if candidate does not meet eligibility criteria
