Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Vivek Ramdas Gaval, was appointed as a Lecturer in General Engineering at the University Institute of Chemical Technology (Respondent No.2) on 4th January 1992 and continued to hold the post. He approached the Bombay High Court after Respondent No.2 rejected a proposal by Respondent No.1 (University of Mumbai) for de-reservation of the post. The contentions raised were similar to those in Writ Petition No.3101 of 2004, and the stand of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.4 (State of Maharashtra) was also similar. The only issue dealt with in this petition was the rejection by Respondent No.4 of the permission sought by Respondent No.1 for de-reservation of the posts. The court, for the reasons given in the disposal of Writ Petition No.3101 of 2004, held that the decision of Respondent No.4 was liable to be quashed and set aside. Additionally, the judgment in Chandana M. Rege v. The Principal, Ramnarain Ruia College (Writ Petition No.2676 of 2004 decided on 11th April 2005) was applied to the facts of this case. Considering that the Petitioner had been holding the post for a long period, the non-availability of a reserved candidate, and substantial compliance with advertisement requirements, the court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned decision.
Headnote
A) Service Law - De-reservation of Posts - Non-availability of Reserved Candidate - The court considered the rejection of a de-reservation proposal for a Lecturer post held by the Petitioner since 1992. The Petitioner was appointed against a reserved post but no reserved candidate was available. The court held that the rejection was liable to be quashed, applying the reasoning in Writ Petition No.3101 of 2004 and the judgment in Chandana M. Rege v. The Principal, Ramnarain Ruia College (Writ Petition No.2676 of 2004 decided on 11th April 2005). (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection by Respondent No.4 (State of Maharashtra) of the proposal for de-reservation of the post held by the Petitioner is valid.
Final Decision
The decision of Respondent No.4 is quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- De-reservation of posts
- non-availability of reserved candidates
- substantial compliance with advertisement requirements
- long service of incumbent
