Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Balu Janu Kukade, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 University (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University) to grant approval to his appointment as a full-time lecturer from 1995-96 in the subject of Sociology at respondent No.4 College (Tuljabhavani Senior College) run by respondent No.3 (Shri Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha). He also sought a writ of certiorari to quash the letter dated 08.04.2008 issued by the University rejecting his proposal for adhoc approval. The petitioner passed B.A. in 1991 and M.A. in Sociology in 1993. On 21.08.1993, an advertisement was published by respondent No.3 for various lecturer posts including a leave vacancy in Sociology. The petitioner applied and was selected by a Selection Committee constituted by the University. However, the University did not grant approval to his appointment. The petitioner contended that he was appointed on 01.09.1993 and worked continuously, but the University rejected the proposal on 08.04.2008 on the ground that the petitioner did not possess NET or SET qualification as required by UGC Regulations. The respondents argued that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualifications and that the appointment was made without following the proper procedure. The court examined the UGC Regulations and found that NET/SET qualification was mandatory for appointment as a lecturer in an aided college. The petitioner did not possess such qualification at the time of appointment. The court held that the University was justified in rejecting the proposal and that no writ of mandamus could be issued to compel approval of an illegal appointment. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment of Lecturer - Qualifications - UGC Regulations - NET/SET Requirement - The petitioner did not possess NET or SET qualification at the time of appointment, which was mandatory under UGC Regulations for appointment as a lecturer in an aided college. The University was justified in rejecting the proposal for approval. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Conditions for Issuance - The petitioner failed to establish a legal right to the relief sought. The appointment was made without following the prescribed procedure and without the petitioner possessing the requisite qualifications. Hence, no writ of mandamus can be issued. (Paras 1-10) C) University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - Regulations - Applicability - The UGC Regulations regarding minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers in universities and colleges are binding on all aided institutions. The University is bound to ensure compliance with these regulations before granting approval. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the University to grant approval to his appointment as a full-time lecturer from 1995-96 and whether the University's rejection of the proposal for adhoc approval is valid.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The University's rejection of the proposal for adhoc approval is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Appointment of lecturers in aided colleges must comply with UGC Regulations
- NET/SET qualification is mandatory
- University has power to refuse approval if qualifications are not met
- Writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel approval of illegal appointment
