WP 572-2003 (J) C2.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

WRIT PETITION NO. 572 OF  2003

1. The Principal

Rizvi College of Arts, Science

and Commerce, Rizvi Complex,

Off Carter Road, Bandra (West),

Mumbai-400 050

2. Chairman/President/Managing Trustee

Rizvi Education Society, C/o. Rizvi College of

Arts, Science & Commerce, Rizvi Complex, Off

Carter Road, Bandra (W), Bombay 400 050

...Petitioners

                  Versus

1. Mrs. Hasina Hafiz Shaikh

residing at 19-D, 1

st

 floor,

Bazar Road, Bandra (W),

Mumbai-400 050

2. The Registrar

University of Mumbai

M.G. Road., Mumbai - 400 032

3. Ms. Maria Gour

C/o Rizvi College of Arts, Science &

Commerce, Rizvi Complex,

Off Carter Road, Bandra (West).

Mumbai-400 050

4. Joint Director

Higher Education, Mumbai Regional

Office at Elphinstone Technical School

Compound 3, Mahapalika Marg,

Mumbai – 400 001 ...Respondents

****

Mr. Swaraj Jadhav a/w Saikiran Mergu i/b Mr. Zakir Basha for the

Petitioners. 

Ms. Panthi Desai i/b M/s. M.P. Vahi and Asso. for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Mohd. Monis i/b Mr. Rui Rodrigues for Respondent No.2.

****

Husen 1

HUSENBASHA

RAHAMAN

NADAF

Digitally signed

by

HUSENBASHA

RAHAMAN

NADAF

Date:

2026.09.16

19:32:02 +0530

WP 572-2003 (J) C2.doc

CORAM :M.M. SATHAYE,  J.

    DATE :16

th

 SEPTEMBER, 2026

JUDGMENT :

1. Invoking   Article   227   of   the   Constitution   of   India,   the

Petitioners   (College   and   Management)   are   challenging   order   dated

19.07.2002 passed by Presiding Officer, Mumbai University and College

Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’ for short) in Appeal No.68 of 2001 filed by

Respondent   No.   1.   By   the   said   impugned   order,   the   Appeal   of

Respondent   No.   1   is   allowed   thereby   quashing   and   setting   aside

termination order dated 27.04.2001 and directing the Petitioners to

reinstate the Respondent No. 1 on original post of full time lecturer in

Sociology and to pay her monthly salary regularly and also pay arrears

of salary from 09.06.2000 till her reinstatement. Respondent No. 4 Joint

Director of Education is directed to reimburse to the Petitioners, the

salary   payable   under   the   impugned   order   and   the   University   was

directed   to   send   the   application   of   the   Petitioners   for   approval   of

appointment of Respondent No. 1 for taking final decision regarding

grant / non-grant of exemption for NET/SET examination.

2. Respondent No.1 filed the said Appeal contending 

inter alia as

under. 

2.1. That being fully qualified for appointment as lecturer in Sociology

(except clearing NET/SET), she was appointed as lecturer by order

dated 06.08.1998. That the appointment was after selection by the local

selection committee. That by letter dated 15.04.1999, the appointment

was   terminated   w.e.f.   21.04.1999.   That   thereafter   by   letter/

appointment order dated 16.06.1999, Respondent No. 1 was again

Husen 2

WP 572-2003 (J) C2.doc

appointed   as   full   time   lecturer   in   Sociology   w.e.f.   16.06.1999   to

20.04.2000. That both appointments were approved by the University.

That on 18.04.2000, she was terminated w.e.f. 21.04.2000.

2.2. That   thereafter   on   26.06.2000,   Respondent   No.   1   appeared

before duly constituted Selection Committee and her third appointment

was made under appointment order dated 01.07.2000 till 30.04.2001.

2.3. That by letter dated 02.03.2001, the University informed the

Principal of the College that appointment of Respondent No. 1 cannot

be approved as per applicable Government Resolution (‘GR’ for short)

and University circular as she has not cleared NET/SET examination.

2.4. That thereafter, the Management / College has issued impugned

termination order dated 27.04.2001. In such circumstances, Respondent

No. 1 filed appeal under Section 59 of Maharashtra Universities Act,

1994, which was numbered as Appeal No. 68 of 2001. 

3. The Petitioners argued before the Tribunal that the case has

nothing to do with NET/SET qualification or exemption in respect

thereof. It was submitted that Respondent No. 1 was appointed for a

temporary period on temporary basis and therefore, her services have

been rightly terminated. It was contended that Respondent No. 1 has no

right to continue in view of the terms of appointment accepted by

Respondent No. 1. 

4. After hearing both sides and after considering the material on

the record, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal as explained above. 

5. The petition was admitted on 31.03.2003 and impugned order

was stayed. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at that time, stated that

Husen 3

WP 572-2003 (J) C2.doc

in case if any vacancy occurs and workload is available in future, the

case of Respondent No. 1 shall be considered sympathetically.

6. It   appears   from   record   that   thereafter,   by   order   dated

16.12.2005 passed in Civil Application No. 2147 of 2003, the interim

stay was vacated (holding that the Petitioners have not acted as per

assurance given) and Petitioners were directed to reinstate Respondent

No. 1 subject to result of this petition.

7. Record further shows that by order dated 16.03.2006 Review

Petition (St) No. 3139 of 2006 filed by Petitioners seeking review of

order   dated   16.12.2005,   was   also   rejected.   However,   this   Court

permitted   the   Petitioner-Management   to   forward   the   proposal   of

Respondent No.1 to University to seek relaxation and/or regularization

from UGC. In this order, there was no direction about payment of

arrears. It was clarified that since UGC is not party no directions can be

issued to UGC. 

8. Record further shows that on 04.12.2025, after a long lapse of

20 years, this Court raised a query as to whether failure to reinstate the

Respondent No. 1 would result in breach of this Court's order. 

9. Thereafter, the Petitioners have filed additional affidavit of the

present Principal of the College affirmed on 08.07.2026 contending

inter alia as under.

9.1  That after the interim stay dated 31.03.2003, there was a

vacancy   in   Petitioner   No.   1-College   for   which   advertisement   was

published and 5 people were interviewed including Respondent No. 1

and since she was not found suitable and qualified for the post, she was

not   appointed.   They   contended   that   Respondent   No.   1   having

Husen 4

WP 572-2003 (J) C2.doc

participated in the subsequent selection process, cannot be permitted to

now contend that she must be reinstated. 

9.2  They further contended that on going through all the papers

and proceedings available with the office of the Petitioners and after

due search and inquiry with the co-employees, it is found that after this

Court vacated the interim relief on 16.12.2005, Respondent No. 1 never

presented herself or reported for resuming duties and has not even

submitted  any application or covering letter  seeking  resumption of

duties. It is further stated that the deponent has been informed by the

staff and the then Principal that instructions were issued to staff that in

the   event   Respondent   No.   1   appears   for   resuming   duties,   all   her

formalities were to be completed immediately in view of order of this

Court vacating interim stay. The deponent has stated that from date of

his joining as Principal of the College till date, Respondent No. 1 has

never presented/reported herself for resuming duties. It is stated that if

Respondent No. 1 had presented herself, the Petitioners would have

immediately allowed her to resume the duties as they have highest

regards   for   the   order   of   this   Court.   It   is   stated   that   by  conduct,

Respondent No. 1 has waived her services by not resuming/ reporting

for duty over a period of more than 10 years and therefore, the petition

deserves to be allowed. 

9.3  It is further stated that Respondent No. 3 who was appointed

in the place of Respondent No. 1 way back in 2003, who has continued

on the post and has been receiving salary from grant-in-aid and has

been discharging her duties diligently with all sincerity.  It is therefore

urged that Respondent No. 3 ought not to be disturbed. 

Husen 5

WP 572-2003 (J) C2.doc

SUBMISSIONS

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Jadhav submitted as

under.

10.1.  That Respondent No. 1 has not challenged the rejection of her

approval under communication by the University dated 02.03.2001. 

10.2. That the terms of the appointment orders clearly stated that

Respondent No. 1 was appointed on temporary basis and with last date

of service already stated in the appointment order. Having accepted

such appointments on temporary basis, Respondent No. 1 cannot be

permitted to make grievance.

10.3. That there is no grievance against Respondent No. 1 and the

termination letter does not cast any stigma.

10.4. That Petitioner is a minority institute, who has right to choose

appropriate persons for appointment.

10.5. That this is not a case where Respondent No. 1 has been

appointed for a long time. That impugned termination, Respondent No.

1 has participated in fresh selection process, but she did not succeed

and Respondent No. 3 has been appointed. Therefore Respondent No. 1

could not have filed the appeal challenging the termination.

10.6. He relied on following Judgments in support of his case :

(i) Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v/s. Umadevi and

Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1.

(ii) Hindustan Education Society and Anr. v/s. Sk. Kaleem Sk.

Gulam Nabi and Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 152.

Husen 6

WP 572-2003 (J) C2.doc

11. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, Ms.

Desai submitted as under.

11.1.  That despite contact details of the employee being available,

no letter was sent by the Petitioner-Management and no effort was

made to reinstate Respondent No. 1. That even today, Respondent No. 1

is about 54 years old and can be re-instated.

11.2. That   since   there   was   clear   vacancy   available,   Respondent

No.1 was duly covered under Government Resolution dated 22.12.1995

and therefore could not have been terminated. That even one month’s

notice was not given.

11.3. That the issue regarding Petitioners being minority institute

was not raised before the Tribunal and therefore it should not be

considered for first time in writ petition.

11.4. That   rejection   of   approval   cannot   be   the   ground   for

termination.

11.5. That even selection by local selection committee is within the

provisions under applicable Statutes and therefore the appointment

ought to have been considered as ‘not on temporary basis’.

11.6. She relied on following Judgments in support of her case.

(i) J.H. Podar High School and Another v/s. State of

Maharashtra and Ors. 2004 (2) Mh.L.J. 713.

(ii) St. Ulai High School and Anr. v/s. Devendraprasad

Jagannath Singh and Anr. 2007(1) Mh.L.J. 597.

Husen 7

WP 572-2003 (J) C2.doc

12. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted in rejoinder that

the benefit of G.R. can be given only if the appointment is by prescribed

selection committee under applicable Statutes.

REASONS AND CONCLUSION

13. I   have   considered   the   rival   submissions   and   perused   the

record.

14. In Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (3) (Supra) it is

clearly held that when a person enters temporary employment and

engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized under

applicable rules and procedure, he is aware of the consequences and

such person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for

being confirmed in the post. This clearly supports the case of the

Petitioners. 

15. Since   the   argument   about   Petitioner-Management   being

minority   institute   was   not   advanced   before   the   Tribunal,   the   said

argument and counter argument is not being considered by this Court

for the first time in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, it is not necessary to

consider the judgment of J. H. Podar High School (Supra) any further.

16. In this backdrop, it is most important to note that even the

Tribunal did not consider whether the termination was illegal. Only

issue considered was ‘whether the Respondent No. 1 is entitled to

continue in the services of Petitioner and/or reinstated?’. Therefore let

us   first   consider   entitlement   of   Respondent   No.   1   to   continue   in

services, as claimed.

17. It must be noted that under first and second appointment

Husen 8

WP 572-2003 (J) C2.doc

orders, Respondent No. 1 was appointed on purely temporary basis and

end-dates   of   her   service   were   provided.   Admittedly   there   is   no

probation provided. On 27.04.2001, Respondent No.1 was terminated.

Thereafter   she   applied   again   for   job   on   04.06.2001   and   then

participated   in   the   selection   process.   She   was   not   selected   and

Respondent No. 3 was selected. There is no dispute about these facts. In

such   situation,   Respondent   No.   1   has   filed   appeal.   Therefore   by

conduct,   Respondent   No.   1   having   participated   in   the   subsequent

selection process, had accepted the termination. It was only when she

was not selected and Respondent No. 3 was selected, she cried foul.

18. It is not disputed that the appointment of the Respondent No.1

was by local selection committee and not by the prescribed selection

committee. This aspect is clearly recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph

Nos.2 and 17 of the impugned order. Therefore, it is clearly held by the

Tribunal that applicable Statute 417(iii) would apply and appointment

thereunder can only be temporary and cannot be considered to be

giving any right to Respondent No.1 to continue beyond the period of

temporary   appointment.   Factually   Respondent   No.1   was   appointed

purely on temporary basis for a particular period with last date of

service clearly stated in the appointment order.

19. Respondent   No.1   has   clearly   accepted   temporary

appointments not once but thrice and none of the appointments were

through prescribed selection committee. Perusal of termination letter

clearly shows that it is a plain termination without any stigma. None of

the appointment orders make a reference to any probation period.

20. The Tribunal proceeded on the condition laid down in GR

dated   22.12.1995   (Non-removal   of   teachers   on   account   of   not

Husen 9

WP 572-2003 (J) C2.doc

qualifying NET/SET) and held that the Respondent No.1’s appointment

falls in this category. The Tribunal held that estoppel won’t apply and

her temporary appointment cannot come in her way, because it is

provided under said GR that the lecturer is not liable from removal from

service only on account of not qualifying the NET/SET examination.

21. Subsequent GR dated 18.10.2001 provided under clause 2(E)

that ‘those lecturers who did not possess the NET/SET qualification and

have been appointed after 11.12.1999, shall not be given the benefit of

extended period and their services are required to be discontinued

before   the   completion   of   the   probationary   period’.   Admittedly,

Respondent No. 1 has been last appointed on 01.07.2000 i.e. after

11.12.1999.

22. Hence,   so   far   as   protection   of   GR   dated   22.12.1995   is

concerned, it is important to note that both the impugned order and

Order of this Court dated 16.03.2006 considered the Division Bench

Judgment of this Court in Vishwaprakash s/o Laxman Shirsath Vs. State

of Maharashtra – 2003(2) Mh.L.J. 176.  In paragraph 23 of the said

judgment, the Division Bench has clinched the issue as under :

“23. The scheme of the 1991 Regulations as well as the 2000

Regulations, as analysed by us, has not aroused any

expectations except the relaxation/concession clause under the

�rst proviso to clause 2 thereunder. Similarly, by the

amendments carried out in 1995 the Commission granted s ome

concessions in respect of the candidates who posses sed the

M.Phil./Ph.D. quali�cations or who had submitted their thesis

before the cut o� date. There were no promises of any

concession or any relaxation in case of other candidates who

did not have the quali�cations of M.Phil. or Ph.D. from passing

the NET/SET examination and a discretion was vested with the

Husen 10

WP 572-2003 (J) C2.doc

University in the 1991 Regulations to approach the Commission

for approval in advance for obtaining approval in respect of

some posts. This concession was subsequently modi�ed in the

2000 Regulations in respect of subjects but the Univer sities'

power to grant such relaxation is removed and the p ower is

now vested with the Commission. The Government of

Maharashtra, while adopting these Regulations by th e

respective resolutions, has not gone beyond the Reg ulations

and none of the Resolutions issued on 11th December, 1999

and thereafter have contemplated any concessions to the

candidates similarly placed to the petitioners. The State

Government did not hold a promise at any time after 11th

December, 1999 to the e�ect that the candidates not

possessing the NET/SET quali�cations would be considered for

appointment as lecturers in the private aided colleges or in the

colleges run by the State Government. The arguments were

perhaps based on the premises that the State Government had

made some promise of concession but the record does not

support this presumption. We, therefore, hold that the doctrine

of legitimate expectation is not applicable while deciding the

legality of the impugned Resolution dated 18th October, 2001.”

(emphasis supplied)

23. Therefore   the   Respondent   No.   1   being   appointed   after

11.12.1999   can   not   claim   legitimate   expectation   and   the   whole

foundation of the argument that termination is illegal, appears shaky.

24. The sum and substance of above judgment, as can be seen

from paragraph 26 thereof, is that -  it would be necessary for the

concerned University or the College/Institution to ascertain whether the

appointee concerned is covered by the benefit under the first proviso to

clause 2 of the 1991 Regulation or the 2000 Regulation before taking

the   final   decision   of   retention   or   removal   as   the   case   maybe.   A

Husen 11

WP 572-2003 (J) C2.doc

particular university/college/institution may justifiably put up a case

before   UGC   regarding   non-availability   of   adequate   facilities   for

NET/SET   examination   and/or   inadequate   number   of   qualified

candidates in a particular subject and more particularly against the

posts   reserved.   These   parameters/prevailing   conditions   could   be

examined by the Commission which is the final  authority and the

Commission has retained the discretion for applying its mind to all

these   ground   realities   and   take   appropriate   decision   of   granting

concession in favour of such subjects.

25. Ultimately, it is held in Paragraph No. 30 of   Vishwaprakash

s/o Laxman Shirsath (Supra) as under.

“30. In the result, the Petition is rejected summarily subject to

our observations that clause 2(b) of the impugned Government

Resolution dated 18

th

October, 2001 is unsustainable and the

same is quashed and set aside. We also hold that the cases of

candidates appointed from 12

th

December, 1999 till 18

th

October,

2001 are required to be examined so as to ascertain the

applicability of the first Proviso to Clause 2 of the 1991

Regulations as well as 2000 Regulations before their services are

sought to be terminated by the respective universities and/or

colleges/institutions.”  

26. In such circumstances, it is clear that termination can be said

to be illegal only to the extent of not sending proposal of Respondent

No.1 to University for consideration by UGC and not giving one month’s

notice. Proper course was to send proposal of Respondent No. 1 for

consideration by UGC, which was directed by the Tribunal as well as

this Court.

Husen 12

WP 572-2003 (J) C2.doc

27. There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down by

the Full Bench of this Court in  ST. Ulai High School (Supra) that

requirement of approval only relates to the disbursal of grant in aid

which is a matter between the management and the State and want of

approval will not invalidate an order of appointment

CONDUCT AFTER 16.12.2005

28. Petitioner-Management by filing affidavit has taken a clear

stand that Respondent No.1 has not reported for reinstatement nor has

sent any letter. It is contended that the Management cannot go after

Respondent No.1 and make her resume the duties. This stand of the

Management is not denied by Respondent No.1. No affidavit in reply is

filed.   However,   a   counter-argument   is   made   that   the   Petitioner-

Management had the correspondence address of Respondent No.1 and

they   should   have   contacted   Respondent   No.1   for   re-instatement.

According to Respondent No.1, the Petitioner-College did not call her to

join duties. Therefore, apparently, Respondent No. 1 has not joined her

duties  or  served  with Petitioner-Management after  her  termination.

Under last appointment Respondent No. 1 served till 30.04.2001, not

thereafter.

29. In the facts of the present case, admittedly Respondent No.1

was   not   appointed   by   prescribed   selection   committee   and   the

appointment was on purely temporary basis with end date of service

clearly  mentioned.   Additionally,   such   temporary  appointments   were

accepted by Respondent No.1, ultimately participating twice in further

selection process, firstly after impugned termination and then even

during pendency of the petition. 

Husen 13

WP 572-2003 (J) C2.doc

30. Even though the impugned order was stayed by this Court on

31.03.2003, Respondent No. 1 was actively pursuing her cause by filing

CAW/2147/2003 where, stay was vacated on 16.12.2005.

31. But during pendency of the petition, after the interim stay was

vacated, Respondent No.1 has not reported to the College and no follow

up   is   shown   after   16.12.2005   with   the   Petitioner-Management   for

reinstatement. Also nothing is shown to the Court about any further

follow up with sending of proposal to UGC. Nothing is brought on

record or pointed out to the Court at the time of final hearing, as to

whether   the   Petitioner-Management   had   forwarded   proposal   of

Respondent   No.   1   to   the   University   seeking   relaxation   and/or

regularization from UGC. So, there is no material about her proposal

being sent to University for relaxation from UGC. At least no material is

placed before the Court to indicate such follow-up. So also, nothing is

brought on record to indicate that the order of reinstatement was

sought to be executed by Respondent No.1. In such circumstances, it

can not be held that Respondent No.1 was not gainfully employed

elsewhere during pendency of the petition after 16.12.2005.

32. However, since the matter was  

sub-judice, I am inclined to

assume best case in favour of the employee (Respondent No. 1), so far

as arrears are concerned and also the date from which payment is

directed   by   the   Tribunal.   But   conduct   of   Respondent   No.   1   after

16.12.2005 will have to be considered, coupled with twice participation

in selection process after impugned termination, as explained above. 

33. Considering the overall circumstances, equities will have to be

balanced. In that view of the matter, at the most, arrears of salary from

09.06.2000 till 16.12.2005 (where-after no follow up is shown) can be

Husen 14

WP 572-2003 (J) C2.doc

considered. 

34. Therefore,   the   petition   is   disposed   of   by   directing   the

Petitioners to pay to Respondent No. 1 her last drawn salary from

09.06.2000 to 16.12.2005 with interest @9% p.a. from 16.12.2005 till

payment, within a period of 4 weeks from today.

35. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed

QR verifiable copy of this order.

    (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)  

Husen 15