1. The present petitioner is seeking regularisation of her services from her initial date of appointment along with all consequential benefits including the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) with effect from the date when she obtained qualification of M.Phil and became eligible.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner possesses the qualification of M.A. in English (1994), M.Phil (1996), and Ph.D. (2006). The first advertisement for the post of lecturer in Business Communication was issued against the post which was reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) on 14th March 1997. The petitioner was selected and appointed with effect from 1st July 1997 against the post reserved for SC. The University granted approval to the said appointment for a period of one year by an order dated 5th March 1998.
3. The second advertisement came to be issued by respondent No.5 – College on 13th May 1998. The petitioner was appointed pursuant to the selection held by Selection Committee, which comprised a nominee of the Director of Education. The petitioner was appointed with effect from 16th July 1998. The said appointment was approved by the University by an order dated 19th May 1999.
4. Thereafter, the third advertisement came to be issued on 26th March 1999. Based on the Selection Committee Report dated 26th May 1999 the petitioner continued to work and the petitioner’s appointment with effect from 22nd June 1999 was approved by the University vide letter dated 12th January 2000.
5. The 4th advertisement came to be issued on 14th April 2000, and by the Selection Committee Report dated 6th June 2000, the petitioner was issued an appointment letter dated 7th July 2000, which was approved by the University vide the order dated 7th May 2002.
6. The 5th advertisement came to be issued on 12th July 2001, and by the Selection Committee Report dated 23rd November 2001, the petitioner was again appointed, which appointment received the approval of the University by an order dated 7th January 2004. Then on 7th July 2003, a 6th advertisement was issued which provided interchangeability. By a Selection Committee Report dated 3rd November 2003, the petitioner came to be appointed to the same post.
7. At this juncture it is pertinent to note that the UGC Regulation dated 1st June 2009 provided a new mode of acquiring Ph.D. Shri Mihir Desai, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, invited our attention to the decision of this Court dated 2nd July 2010 in Writ Petition No.1489/2009 (Page-80) holding that the UGC Regulation of 2009 is prospective and will not apply to those appointed prior to 1st June 2009. The College, vide a letter dated 24th February 2010 requested the University for approval, stating that petitioner has been granted exemption from NET/SET.
8. The petitioner's name was removed from the Joint Director (JD) Payroll with effect from July 2011. Thereafter, the petitioner was treated as an unaided teacher. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 sent the proposal for de-reservation of the post to the respondent No.4 – University on 3rd September 2014. The College submitted a proposal for de-reservation recommended by the University to Joint Director on 7th November 2014.
9. The advertisement dated May 2015 was issued by respondent No.5 - College for an open post. The petitioner was selected, but the Joint Director’s nominee did not sign the selection report. The proposal for de-reservation was again submitted and recommended by the University to the Joint Director on 1st September 2015. In February 2016, provident fund was deducted from the petitioner’s salary and was calculated at the higher rate applicable to an unaided post. The college vide its letter dated 10th December 2016, called upon the petitioner to explain whether her Ph.D. degree was as per the requirement.
10. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court for the following substantive reliefs:
“a. For a Writ of Mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondent No.1 to regularize and approve the services of the Petitioner as on probation from 1st July 1997 and as confirmed from 1st July 1999 and grant all the consequential benefits therein.
b. For a Writ of Mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondent No.1 to grant the Petitioner the Career Advancement benefits by counting the services of the Petitioner from 1st July 1997.
c. For a Writ of Mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Joint Director i.e. the Respondent No.3 to release the Petitioner's salary from August 2012 onwards and continue to pay the Petitioner's salary on a month to month basis.
d. For a Writ of Mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondent No.5 College not to terminate the services of the Petitioner, advertise the said post and appoint anyone else on the said post of Assistant Professor.
d.1.- For a Writ of Certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 11.02.2026 which has been marked and annexed hereto as Exhibit O.
d.2- For a Writ of Mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondent No.5 College to deposit all Provident Fund amounts deducted from the Petitioner's salary but not deposited, along with all accrued interest thereon, into the Petitioner's Provident Fund account, in accordance with law.
11. By an order dated 20th December 2016, this Court directed the respondents to maintain status-quo as on 20th December 2016 in regard to the post held by the petitioner. The ad interim relief is continued till date.
12. The affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondent-State. The learned AGP was at pains to point out that the appointment of the petitioner was against a reserved post. It is submitted that though the University approved the appointment, the very fact that the petitioner was appointed to a reserved post disentitles her from claiming the relief of regularisation. It is submitted that the college continued to appoint the petitioner to a reserved post. It is submitted that the University submitted a proposal for de-reserving the post only on 3rd September 2014, i.e., almost after 7 years from the first date of appointment of the petitioner. It is submitted that again a proposal was submitted, but the same was rejected by the State on 11th February 2026 for valid and cogent reasons. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned AGP that this is not a fit case where the petition should be entertained. Our attention is invited to the stand taken by the respondents in the affidavit-in-reply to contend that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present case.
13. Learned counsel for the management supported the petition. It is submitted that the proposal, in fact, was made for de-reserving the post, but the respondent-State was not justified in rejecting the said proposal. It is submitted that after the petitioner’s name was removed from the Joint Director’s pay roll from July 2011, the management has been paying the salary of the petitioner as since she was treated as unaided teacher.
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials on record and the pleadings.
15. The petitioner was appointed after undergoing duly prescribed selection procedure and was selected by a properly constituted selection committee on 16th July 1998. The petitioner was continued on a temporary basis for years together, though on a reserved post. We find that in the present case, for no fault on the part of the petitioner, she has been continued this long. The petitioner now has approximately 5 years left to retire. There is nothing on record to indicate that petitioner’s service is with any blemish or the same is not satisfactory.
16. The management had submitted a proposal to the University for de-reservation of the post on 1st September 2015, which was recommended by the University as well. The University had forwarded a proposal to the Joint Director for de-reservation.
17. In the present case, we find that the petitioner has no role to play in procedural compliance, and the same cannot be used to deny her benefits of regularisation of her service. Reliance is placed on decision of this Court in Narayan Pagar v/s. State of Maharashtra and others decided on 12th March 2026 wherein this Court has held that where the employee is not at fault for the delay in the de-reservation of a post and has been appointed, such employee is deemed to have been regularised from the initial date of appointment.
18. What is most pertinent to note is that the respondent college was granted minority status in 2019, following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of N. Ammad v/s. Manager, Emjay High School and others((1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 674). The grant of minority status is recognition and acceptance of a legal character that already existed. Thus, the grant of minority status relates back to the date of the establishment of the institution. Once it is established that the respondent-college has been a minority institution, then the issue of de-reservation cannot sustain, as a minority institution cannot be directed to follow the reservation policy as the same violates the rights of the minority institutions under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
19. Mr. Mihir Desai, learned Senior Advocate draws support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bombay Institution for Deaf and Mutes and anr. v/s. Department of Social Welfare, Pune and others(2002 (1) LLN 732). It is seen from the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court that as the petitioner was employed in minority institution, the issue of de-reservation can no longer be relevant. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this is a fit case where petitioner’s service ought to be regularised for all purposes from the initial date of appointment.
20. Further, we find that from the 2nd amendment to the UGC Regulation, 2000 dated 14th June 2000, the teachers possessing M.Phil were exempted from obtaining NET/SET for undergraduate courses. The petitioner was thus exempted from obtaining NET/SET and, therefore, she is entitled to claim the benefit of CAS with effect from 14th June 2006 as she had obtained her M.Phil. in 1996 itself. The decision in Sudhir s/o Sharadrao Hunge and anr. v/s. State of Maharashtra and others(2010 (4) Mh.L.J. 572) is relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner in which identically placed teachers who possessed an M.Phil degree prior to 2009 were held eligible for CAS benefits.
21. The petitioner was appointed on 1st July 1998 and has been working on the said post since then. The post in question is a sanctioned and aided post. However, post 2011, the Joint Director, Higher Education has removed the name of the petitioner from the Payroll, and hence it was the management which was paying the salary to the petitioner. The post in question continues to remain a sanctioned and fully aided post. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the submission of learned AGP that for the period prior to the management getting the minority status, this Court must examine the question of whether any illegality has been committed by the management in appointing the petitioner to a reserved post. Even otherwise, the management had forwarded a proposal for de-reserving the post to the University. The University had recommended such de-reservation to the State Government. It is the State Government which rejected the proposal for de-reservation. The petitioner is not at fault. The petitioner cannot be penalised, as these are purely procedural matters requiring compliance by the respondent college and University. The petitioner had no role to play in any such procedural compliance and,therefore, the same cannot be used to deny her benefit of regularisation of her services.
22. We have no hesitation in allowing this petition. The petitioner is entitled for regularisation and continuation of her services with effect from initial date of appointment i.e. 1st July 1998, along with all consequential service benefits, including CAS benefits, fixation of pay and arrears.
23. However, we are not inclined to accept the request of learned counsel for the management that they should be allowed to claim a refund for the period the college has paid salary to the petitioner considering that except for forwarding a proposal, the management has not taken any steps challenging the inaction on the part of the State Government in considering the proposal for de-reservation.
24. It is made clear that henceforth, the salary and arrears shall be paid by the State Government on the footing that petitioner is properly appointed on a sanctioned and vacant post from the initial date of her appointment. A necessary proposal to that effect be submitted by the College to the University within a period of 4 weeks from the date of uploading of this order. The University to process the proposal expeditiously, and in any case within a period of 6 weeks from the receipt of such proposal. The State Government to take a decision within a period of 6 weeks from the receipt of the proposal from the University.
25. The learned counsel for the management, on instructions, fairly submits that provident fund dues will be deposited in EPFO as per the entitlement of the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from today.
26. Since the appointment of the petitioner stands regularised, the petitioner’s service have to be treated as continuous service from the date of initial appointment.
27. Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of accordingly. No costs.
