Bombay High Court

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS PRESIDENTversusISWAR RATAN CHAUDHARI AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court held that the long‑service appointment, subsequently approved and funded by the State, was a legal and valid appointment, and therefore the review petition cannot be entertained.

Summary

The employer filed a review application seeking to set aside a judgment that reinstated a laboratory attendant after his termination, arguing that the post was not sanctioned at the time of his 2001 appointment and therefore the appointment was invalid. The petitioner relied on the Akola Municipal Corporation case, contending that an employee cannot claim regularisation without a sanctioned post. The Court noted that the employee had served continuously for about 20 years, that his appointment was later approved and his salary paid under a grant‑in‑aid scheme, creating a presumption of legality. It distinguished the Akola case, observing that the present institution is a private management and the appointment had been regularised before termination. The Court held that there was no ground to revisit the earlier judgment, especially regarding back wages, given the limited scope of review jurisdiction. Consequently, the review application was dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether an appointment made before a post is formally sanctioned can be deemed legal and valid.
Whether the precedent set in Akola Municipal Corporation v. Secretary is applicable to the present case.
Whether the review court can overturn the earlier judgment and award back wages.

Subjects

appointment validity
sanctioned post
review jurisdiction
back wages
grant-in-aid
employment law
public sector

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:40289

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

906 REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 28 OF 2026
IN WP/12431/2022
Social and Cultural Association Through Its President
VERSUS
Iswar Ratan Chaudhari And Others
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. V. D. Salunke h/f Mr. Khot Abhinay D
AGP for Respondents-State: Ms. R. R. Tandale
Advocate for Respondent No.3 in WP : Mr. P. N. Kutti
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. R. I. Wakade
...
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
Dated : September 02, 2026
ORAL ORDER :

1. The present application for review is filed by the

employer/Management seeking review of the judgment and order

dated 19th August 2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.12431

of 2022, whereby the judgment and order dated 20th September 2022

passed by the learned University and College Tribunal, Aurangabad, in

Appeal No.KBCNMU-2/2021 was quashed and set aside and the

respondents were directed to reinstate the present respondent

No.1/original petitioner in service on the post of Laboratory Attendant

with continuity and all consequential benefits, without back wages.

2. The principal contention of Mr. V. D. Salunke, learned Advocate

appearing for the review petitioner, is that this Court, while allowing

the writ petition, failed to appreciate that the post of Laboratory

Page 1 of 4
906 RA 28-2026

Attendant against which respondent No.1 was allegedly appointed in

the year 2001 was sanctioned only subsequently. It is, therefore,

contended that the appointment of respondent No.1 could not have

been treated as a legal and valid appointment.

3. The learned Senior Advocate places reliance upon the

judgment of this Court in the case of Akola Municipal Corporation

v. Secretary, Akola Zilla Nagar Parishad and Mahanagarpalika

Thekedari Sanghatana, 2026:BHC-NAG:9837, to contend that

unless an appointment is made against a sanctioned post, an

employee cannot claim a right to regularization or continuation in

service on such post.

4. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 was appointed as a

Laboratory Attendant in the year 2001 and continued to work as

such for about 20 years. It is also not in dispute that the

Management subsequently passed a resolution confirming the

services of the respondent No.1 and that the institution was

admitted to grant-in-aid, pursuant to which the salary of the

respondent No.1 was being paid from Government grants.

5. The issue regarding sanction of the post was specifically

considered by this Court while deciding the writ petition. In

paragraph 13 of the judgment under review, the contention

regarding the post of Laboratory Attendant having been sanctioned

subsequently was noticed. In paragraph 18, this Court also

Page 2 of 4
906 RA 28-2026

considered the fact that the respondent No.1 had continued in

employment for a period of about 20 years and that his appointment

had subsequently been approved and salary was being paid through

Government grants.

6. It would be appropriate to deal with the second contention

first, relating to the legality of the appointment. In the case at hand,

respondent No. 1 was appointed somewhere in the year 2001. His

services were terminated in the year 2021, that is, after a period of

20 years of continuous service. It is not in dispute that the

appointment was subsequently approved, and the salary of the

respondent employee was being disbursed by the State Government

under the Grant-in-Aid scheme. This Court observed in paragraph 18

of the judgment under review that the peculiar facts of the case give

rise to a presumption that the appointment of the respondent

employee, who continued in service for a long period of 20 years,

was a legal and valid appointment, particularly in view of the

subsequent approval granted by the State Authority.

7. The judgment in the case of Akola Municipal Corporation

(supra) will not come to the aid of the review petitioner. In that case,

the employees were engaged through a contractor and sought

regularization based on Model Standing Orders on the premise that

they had completed more than 240 days of service in a calendar

year. This Court held that unless the employment, even if temporary

Page 3 of 4
906 RA 28-2026

or ad-hoc, is against a sanctioned post, the right of regularization

upon completion of 240 days cannot be claimed by invoking Model

Standing Orders. The foundation of that judgment was that the

Municipal Corporation was not legally competent to create posts, and

consequently lacked the competence to grant regularization to

persons working against non-sanctioned posts.

8. In the present case, the institution is run by a private

management, which appointed respondent No. 1 way back in 2001

and terminated his services in 2021 without holding a

departmental/disciplinary inquiry. Furthermore, the termination is in

2021, by which time approval to the appointment had already been

granted in 2008. Reliance on the judgment in Akola Municipal

Corporation is, therefore, completely misplaced.

9. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the

considered opinion that no case is made out to revisit the judgment

with respect to the award of back wages, particularly having regard

to the limited scope of review jurisdiction, which cannot be

converted into an appeal.

10. The Review Application is, accordingly, dismissed.

11. There shall be no order as to costs.

( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )

vj gawade/-.

Page 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…