The petitioner challenges the selection of respondent No. 5 as Assistant Professor, arguing that the selection process was flawed due to the absence of a valid Non-Creamy Layer certificate at the time of the interview, which was a mandatory requirement. Despite securing higher marks, the petitioner was not selected, and the subsequent approval of respondent No. 5's backdated certificate by the University is contested. The court ruled that the appointment of respondent No. 5 was invalid and ordered the petitioner to be appointed instead.

1. Introduction

• Rule Returnable Forthwith: Case heard at admission stage with both parties' consent.
• Petitioner's Challenge: Seeks quashing of respondent No. 5's appointment as Assistant Professor.

2. Selection Process

• Background: Both petitioner and respondent No. 5, from OBC category, participated in a selection process advertised on 17.09.2019.
• Interview and Marks: Petitioner scored 92 marks, respondent No. 5 scored 64 marks, but respondent No. 5 was selected.

3. Complaints and Inquiry

• Complaints: Petitioner and others raised objections on 20.02.2020 and 27.02.2020, questioning respondent No. 5's eligibility.
• University Inquiry: A committee was formed to investigate; it eventually favored respondent No. 5.

4. Petitioner’s Submissions

• Eligibility Issue: Respondent No. 5 lacked a Non-Creamy Layer certificate on the interview date.
• Marks Disparity: Despite higher marks, the petitioner was not selected.
• Backdated Certificate: Allegations that respondent No. 5's certificate was backdated and later canceled.
• Legal Precedents: Cited relevant case law supporting the petitioner's position.

5. Respondents’ Defense

• University’s Position: Argued the petitioner should have approached the Grievance Committee under Section 79 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016.
• Respondent No. 5’s Position: Claimed selection was lawful and the certificate issue was a minor irregularity.

6. Points for Determination

1. Alternate Remedy: Availability of grievance redressal mechanism under Section 79 of the Act.
2. Eligibility on Interview Date: Validity of respondent No. 5's eligibility at the time of interview.
3. Petitioner’s Entitlement: Whether the petitioner should be appointed as Assistant Professor.

7. Analysis

Point No. (i)

• Grievance Committee’s Impartiality: Concerns about the Grievance Committee’s neutrality due to overlapping membership with the selection committee.
• Statutory Exceptions: Petitioner’s grievance falls under exceptions where Grievance Committee is not an appropriate forum.

Point No. (ii)

• Advertisement Conditions: Emphasized the need to produce original certificates during the interview.
• Respondent No. 5’s Eligibility: Lack of Non-Creamy Layer certificate at the time of interview rendered her ineligible.

8. Conclusion

• Violation of Conditions: Respondent No. 5's failure to produce the certificate at the interview invalidates her eligibility.
• Approval Process: University’s subsequent acceptance of the certificate and approval was flawed due to the initial non-compliance with eligibility criteria.

Order

• Writ Petition Allowed: The court quashed the appointment of respondent No. 5.
• Petitioner Appointed: Ordered the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor within four weeks.
• No Order as to Costs