High Court
Facts
137.WP.5883.24.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.5883 OF 2024Dr. Sunita Uttamrao Pawar … PETITIONER VERSUS Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krushi Vidyapeeth Parbhani, through its Registrar,Administrative Building, Krushi Nagar,Vasmat Road, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani… RESPONDENT…Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh Advocate for respondent : Mr. V.D. Patnurkar… CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.Reserved On : 07.10.2024Pronounced On : 18.10.2024ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learnedadvocate Mr. Patnurkar waives service for the respondent. At the jointrequest of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage ofadmission.2.The only issue that arises in this petition is as to if thepetitioner who was appointed as a Senior Research Assistant in the year2007 and was temporarily promoted to the post of Assistant Professor(Agronomy) can be considered eligible to the post of Associate Professorwith the respondent – University, the eligibility criteria for which is interalia of having eight years experience as Assistant Professor, by counting1/6
Legal Reasoning
137.WP.5883.24.odtthe period she had worked temporarily in the spells as AssistantProfessor.3.There is factually no dispute. The petitioner was appointedas a Senior Research Assistant on 16.11.2007. She was temporarilypromoted to the post of Assistant Professor (Agronomy) on 21.10.2014with a break of around three months where after she was againappointed temporarily as an Assistant Professor. There is no dispute thateventually she was promoted on regular basis to the post of AssistantProfessor (Agronomy) on 23.06.2015. She was issued with an experiencecertificate by the respondent on 15.09.2023 which reads as under :“EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATEThis is to certify that, Dr. Sunita Uttamrao Pawar is presentlyworking as Assistant Professor Agronomy under the control of theAssociate Dean & Principal, College of Agriculture Parbhani. His serviceparticulars are as under : Sr.No.Post held Pay-scale (Rs.)Period1Senior Research Assistant 9300-34800 GP 4400/-16.11.2007 to 03.08.20112Assistant Professor Agronomy(Temporary Promotion)15600-39100 Grade pay 6000/- (01.01.2006 Onwards)04.08.2011 to 10.07.20143Senior Research Assistant9300-34800 GP 4400/-11.07.2014 to 20.10.20144Assistant Professor Agronomy(Temporary appointment)15600-39100 Grade pay 6000/- (01.01.2006 Onwards)21.10.2014 to 22.06.20155Assistant Professor Agronomy15600-39100 Grade pay 6000/- (01.01.2006 Onwards) Pay Level AL-10 Rs.57,700-1,82,400 (01.01.2016 Onwards)23.06.2015 to till DateThe requisite qualification for the post of Associate Professor contained in Appendix III of Statute 73 of the respondent University, is as under :2/6 137.WP.5883.24.odt“(2)A minimum eight years of experience in teaching orresearch or extension education in the position of AssistantProfessor or its equivalent; in a University or Accredited grant-in-aid College, Recognized Research Institution Excluding theperiod of Ph.D.;”4.In the backdrop of such state of affairs, the learned advocateMr. Deshmukh would vehemently submit that when the statute does notrequire that the minimum eight years of experience in the position ofAssistant Professor by providing any qualification/rider, it is legally notsustainable to read that such experience should be in the regular cadre orshould be a continues spell of eight years. When the statute is noteloquent enough, the respondent cannot be allowed to interpretaccording to its whims and fancies. He would submits that when thewhole emphasis is on the fact of having an experience in teaching orresearch, it should not matter as to how such experience was gained.Having been promoted temporarily the petitioner could gain theexperience as an Assistant Professor and there is neither the law nor isthere any logic in ignoring it while counting the period of experience,when admittedly, she was brought in the regular cadre by giving her aregular promotion to the post of Assistant Professor with effect from23.06.2015. 5.Mr. Deshmukh would cite the decision in the matter ofRaghunath Rai Bareja and Anr. Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors.;(2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 230, to buttress his submission that thequestion of interpretation would come into play only if a plain reading of3/6 137.WP.5883.24.odta statutory provision gives rise to some doubt. If the language is plain asis that of Clause (2) above, there is no scope for any interpretation andthe literal rule will prevail. He would also rely upon Central Bureau ofInvestigation and Ors. Vs. Keshub Mahindra and Ors.; (2011) 6 SupremeCourt Cases 216, and submit that even the judgments of the SupremeCourt cannot be read in a manner so as to nullify the express provision ofan Act. 6.Per contra, the learned advocate Mr. Patnurkar would submitthat when the statute requires eight years of experience as an AssistantProfessor as an eligibility criteria for being promoted to the post ofAssociate Professor, it is not a question of taking into consideration theexperience which the petitioner had purely by virtue of having renderedsome spells of temporary appointments as an Assistant Professor. Thelegislature in its wisdom has not qualified the eligibility criteria with anyexception in respect of the services rendered as Assistant Professor, ontemporary or ad hoc basis or as a stopgap arrangement. He wouldbuttress his submission by citing the decision of a co-ordinate divisionbench in a similar matter in case of Dr. Mirza Intekhab Akbar Baig Vs.The State of Maharashtra and Ors.; (WP No.8352/2020) decided on30.04.2021. 7.We have considered the rival submissions and perused thepapers. 8.At the outset, it is necessary to note that if we have to follow4/6 137.WP.5883.24.odtthe judicial discipline as indeed we are bound to, in the light of thedecision of a coordinate division bench in the matter of Dr. MirzaIntekhab Akbar Baig (supra), wherein, in respect of exactly the sameissue, for the elaborate reasons assigned by the brother judges, a similarargument of counting of experience gained on the temporary or ad-hocappointments as Assistant Professors under Statute 73, Appendix III, hasbeen expressly turned down, holding that such temporary spells ofservice rendered on ad hoc and temporary basis as Assistant Professorcannot be counted while counting the eight years of experience asAssistant Professor, we are bound to follow it unless ofcourse we are ableto take exception on the basis of some reasoning, in which case it wouldbe imperative for us to make a reference to the larger bench.9.We are in respectful agreement with the reasons assigned bythe division bench and the petition is liable to be dismissed as the issue isno longer res integra.10.Indeed, there cannot be a deviation in the light of the lawsettled in the matter of Raghunath Rai Bareja (supra) and Central Bureauof Investigation (supra), as far as interpretation of statutes are concerned.Even the Courts cannot add or subtract or legislate, if the plain reading ofa statutory provision leaves no room for entertaining any doubt or givesrise to any confusion. When the Statute 73 Appendix III is clear andexpressly provides for a minimum of eight years experience in theposition of Assistant Professor as a requisite qualification for being5/6 137.WP.5883.24.odteligible to be promoted to the post of Associate Professor, allowing thetemporary spells of service rendered to meet exigencies and as a stopgaparrangement, cannot be considered for counting the experience. It wouldbe like reading down the provision without any reason, rather it would bea case of judicial overreach in resorting to such interpretation, if thesubmissions of Mr. Deshmukh for the petitioner are to be accepted.11.It appears that unfortunately for the petitioner she couldavail a study leave for a period of 2 years after she was appointed in theregular cadre as an Assistant Professor between December 2017 andDecembe 2019. Which seems to have landed her in trouble because forthat period of two years for completing her Ph.D she was deprived ofhaving the experience of two years.12.Be that as it may, we cannot read down Statute 73 AppendixIII as is being submitted on behalf of the petitioner so as to include eventhe experience gained by the petitioner in the spells on being appointedtemporarily as Assistant Professor. 13.The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEhabeeb6/6