1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. The petitioner filed a petition before the Hon'ble Chancellor, purportedly U/s. 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, thereby challenging the appointment of the present Respondent No. 4 to the post of Associate Professor for English subject. The petitioner had also applied for the said post, pursuant to the advertisement. The Respondent No. 1 disposed of the said petition vide order dated 26.8.2012, by holding that the Respondent No. 1 does not find any justification to interfere with the decision taken by the University authorities in the matter of selection and appointment of Respondent No. 4 to the post of Associate Professor in English with the Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University. The petitioner has assailed the said order in the present Writ Petition.
3. Mr. S.M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner during course of his lucid arguments canvassed following propositions:
(a) The order passed by the Respondent No. 1 is against the principles of natural justice. No hearing has been given to the petitioner nor the petitioner was given the copies of the report/clarification and the documents which were allegedly received by the Respondent No. 1 from the Vice Chancellor of the University. Such an order is in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. The same can not be sustained and deserves to be set aside.
(b) The learned counsel relies on the following judgments:
(i) MANU/SC/0133/1978 : 1978(1) SCC 248 "Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another"
(ii) MANU/MH/0216/1986 : 1985 Mh.L.J. 887 "Vidarbha Nagarpalika Parishad and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others"
(iii) MANU/MH/0364/2002 : 2002(3) Mh.L.J. 750 "Anil Amrut Atre Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad and another"
(iv) MANU/SC/0241/2002 : (2002) 4 SCC 447 Union of India and others Vs. Aradhana Trading Co. and others.
(c) The order impugned is quasi judicial order and not an administrative order as is writ large from the nature of proceedings itself. The Respondent No. 1 was exercising the quasi judicial powers and while dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner, no reasons are recorded. The order without recording the reasons can not be sustained and deserves to be set aside. The learned counsel to buttress his submission relies on the following judgments:
(i) MANU/SC/0480/2009 : (2009) 12 SCC 609 "Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta"
(ii) MANU/SC/0409/2009 : (2009) 4 SCC 422 "State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sada Ram and another"
(iii) MANU/SC/0731/2010 : (2010) 9 SCC 486 "Maya Devi (Dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Raj Kumari Batra (dead) through L.Rs. and another"
(iv) MANU/SC/0941/2011 : (2011) 8 SCC 670 "State of Uttaranchal and another Vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish and others"
(v)