The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, dismissed the writ petition filed by Amol S. Zalte, who sought temporary approval for the period prior to obtaining his M. Phil degree and permanent approval from the date of acquiring M. Phil. The Court held that the petitioner did not meet the requisite qualifications at the time of his appointment and was not entitled to the reliefs claimed, including disbursement of salary as per the government resolution.

1. Introduction of Parties and Petitioner's Request:

   • Amol Zalte, the petitioner, was employed as a lecturer in Computer Science and sought permanent approval for his post after acquiring an M. Phil degree, along with salary as per government guidelines.

2. Background of Petitioner's Employment:

   • The petitioner was appointed in 2003 in a non-grant post as a lecturer. He acquired an M. Phil degree in 2009 and sought permanent approval from that date.

3. UGC Regulations on Qualifications:

   • The Court reviewed various UGC regulations from 2000, 2002, 2006, and 2009, which required qualifications such as NET or M. Phil at the time of appointment. The petitioner was not NET qualified at the time of his appointment.

4. Petitioner's Argument:

   • The petitioner argued that he was exempt from appearing in the NET examination due to his M. Phil qualification, which he acquired before the cutoff date of July 11, 2009, as per UGC guidelines.

5. University’s Response:

   • The university and other respondents contested the petition, arguing that the petitioner was not qualified at the time of appointment, and his post was filled through irregular means, without a properly constituted selection committee.

6. Court’s Consideration of Qualifications:

   • The Court examined the qualification regulations and determined that the petitioner’s M. Phil, acquired in 2009, could not retroactively qualify him for his post, as he lacked the necessary qualifications at the time of appointment in 2003.

7. Lack of Procedural Compliance:

   • The Court noted that the petitioner’s appointment lacked approval from a duly constituted selection committee and was not properly forwarded to the university for approval.

8. Final Judgment:

   • The Court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner was not qualified for the post as per UGC regulations and failed to meet the required conditions for permanent approval. His request for salary disbursement was also denied due to lack of evidence.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• UGC Regulations: The minimum qualifications required for appointment to teaching posts were discussed, particularly amendments in 2000, 2002, 2006, and 2009.
• Maharashtra Public Universities Act, Section 79: The alternate remedy provision regarding disputes over appointments and disbursement of salary.

Ratio Decidendi:

The petitioner’s qualifications at the time of appointment were insufficient under the governing UGC regulations. The Court emphasized that an individual must meet the prescribed qualifications at the time of appointment, and acquiring qualifications later cannot retroactively confer eligibility for permanent appointment.

Subjects:

UGC Regulations, Lecturer Appointment, M. Phil Qualification, NET Exemption, Temporary Approval, Permanent Approval, Higher Education, Maharashtra Public Universities Act