ANANT MADHAVRAO DESHMUKHversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:22967-DB




                                            (1)                WP-3771-2009


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 3771 OF 2009

           Anant s/o. Madhavrao Deshmukh
           Age: 59 years, Occu: Service,
           R/o c/o. M. K. Khose Kulswamini Niwas,
           Near Jadhav Hospital, Hanuman Mandir,
           Road, Shahunagar, Beed- 431 112.               ...Petitioner
                        VERSUS
           1. The State of Maharashtra
           Through its secretary,
           Department of Higher & Technical Education,
           Mantralaya Mumbai.
           2. The Director,
           Directorate of Education (Higher Education),
           Central Building, Maharashtra State,
           Pune-411 001.
           3. The Joint Director,
           Higher & Technical Education,
           Aurangabad Division,
           Railway Station Road, Aurangabad.
           4. The Principal,
           MSP Mandal’s Balbhim College, Beed
           Dist. Beed.
           5. Shri. Sharda Bhuvan Education
           Society’s Institute of Technology
           and Management Building,
           VIP Road Yashwant College Campus,
           Nanded, Tal. & Dist. Nanded,
           through its Secretary.                         ...Respondents
                                   (2)                 WP-3771-2009


                                    ...
Mr. A. A. Nimbalkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for Respondents-State.

                    CORAM                 : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                            SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.

                    RESERVED ON           : 7th MAY 2026.
                    PRONOUNCED ON         : 12th JUNE 2026.

JUDGMENT :-[PER- KISHORE C. SANT, J.]


1.    Heard Mr. Nimbalkar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and

Mr. Jadhavar, the learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/State.


2.    The present petitioner is a retired lecturer. Respondent No.1 is the

State Government. Respondent No.2 is the Director of Higher Education,

Pune. Respondent No.3 is the Joint Director, Higher & Technical

Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad and Respondent No.4 is

the Principal of Balbhim College, Beed, where the petitioner had initially

joined as part-time lecturer in English on 20.07.1973. Respondent No.5

is the newly added respondent where the petitioner worked from 1976

onwards.
                                   (3)                  WP-3771-2009


3.    By way of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging

Clause (3) and (4) of the Government decision/letter dated 29.10.1983

being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of

India. He has also challenged the order/letter passed by the Respondent

No.3-the Joint Director, Higher & Technical Education, Aurangabad

Division, Aurangabad dated 20.02.2009.



4.    The Government decision/letter dated 29.10.1983 protects the

services of the teachers, who were declared as surplus in the school and

were absorbed in the same management in some different school or

college. By clause (3), such protection is limited only to the teachers

who are absorbed in the same management. Clause (4) gives the

benefits only to those teachers who were absorbed in the senior college

of the same management in the pay-scale of Rs.700-1600. It is the case

of the petitioner that, because of these two clauses, the petitioner is not

given any protection of the Government decision dated 29.10.1983.


5.    The facts in short giving rise to the present writ petition are as

below:
                                  (4)                 WP-3771-2009


.    Initially, the State of Maharashtra decided to implement the

uniform pattern of education i.e. 10+2+3 in 1975. Prior to that the said

pattern was 11+4. Class XI was thus attached to schools. In some cases,

classes XI and XII came to be attached with the college making the

course of XI and XII together and thereafter, graduation, whereas in

some cases, XI and XII came to be attached to school. In the present

case, the petitioner was working with Respondent No.4. Since the Class

XI was required to be detached, the petitioner became surplus. He

thereafter joined Respondent No.5 college on 06.12.1976. He made the

representations in view of Government decision of 1983, stating that he

should be given the protection of continuity of service which was not

granted to him. It is on this basis, the petitioner made several

representations and ultimately has approached this Court challenging

the order/letter dated 20.02.2009 passed by Respondent No.3.


6.   By way of impugned order, the respondent No.3 informed that the

services of the petitioner were under two different management and

therefore the pay cannot be protected.
                                    (5)                 WP-3771-2009


7.    Mr. Nimbalkar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, vehemently

argued that the Government initially, came up with the circular dated

16.05.1975 wherein, it was made clear that the protection of service

conditions and approved scales in respect of teaching staff in colleges as

it stood on 07.02.1975 consequent on introduction of new educational

pattern   would   be   protected.   The   appendix-C    stated   that   the

managements of colleges in the State should not appoint any additional

staff in the University Grants Commission (UGC) pay scales from

standards XI and XII. Resolution dated 11.06.1976 bearing Resolution

No.HSC/1076/419-XX-XXI was as regards the surplus lecturers at

collegiate level. It was expected to absorb the teaching staff as far as

possible. Certain arrangements were made. The status quo was to be

maintained in respect of teaching staff who were in continuous service

and who were appointed in colleges on or before 07.02.1975 in clear

vacancies, and they should be continued to be paid their salary and

allowances in their respective scales. Secondly, it was directed that while

allotting the work at the college level, preference was to be given to the

five categories of teaching staff as per the uniform guidelines. The
                                    (6)                   WP-3771-2009


teachers, who cannot be provided work at collegiate level, were allotted

work in the junior college classes. Thirdly, the teachers who were

appointed on or after 08.02.1975, was to be terminated if they cannot

be allotted any work either at the collegiate level or at the junior college

level. The fresh candidate persons in their place will not be permissible.

In the appendix, it was directed that the teachers who were in service on

or before 07.02.1975 and were also in continuous service upto the end

of the academic year 1975-76 in a college or colleges under the same

management, but had not completed two years continuous service upto

the end of 1975-76 as per guidelines would also be protected. The fully

surplus teachers in category (i) and who were junior-most in that

category were given an option to declare, whether they are given to be

appointed in some other colleges in State where full work-load at the

collegiate level can be given and in case, such employees will not go for

some other college in the State, but is willing to work in the junior

college classes attached to his college. On the clear understanding that if

he is so appointed to teach the junior college classes, he will not be

entitled to the revised UGC scale till he teaching junior college classes. If
                                     (7)                 WP-3771-2009


after absorbing the surplus teacher, any vacancies remain at the

collegiate level, teachers should be absorbed in those vacancies even any

one category. It was further prescribed that when vacancies arises at the

collegiate level any time in future, such teachers should be absorbed in

those vacancies in the order of their seniority list.



8.    Mr. Nimbalkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner further submits

that the petitioner was appointed even prior to 1975 and had completed

two years of service, and therefore, he was entitled to pay protection.

The subsequent Government Resolution dated 27.04.1981 also stated

that the lecturers who were in service on 07.02.1975 in clear vacancies

should be held eligible for protection in the matter of their status as well

as eligible to revise UGC recommended pay scale of college lecturers

viz.700-1600 and all benefits accrued from such protection. He thus

submits that since there were no vacancies with the respondent No.5,

the petitioner had no option but to join some other institution i.e.

Respondent No.6 and it is for that reason, now he is not given any

benefit which are made available by G.R. dated 11.06.1976 and
                                  (8)                  WP-3771-2009


27.04.1981. He relied upon the circulars and the Government

Resolutions for that purpose. He submits that, by communication/letter

dated 29.10.1983 a different stand is taken and it is introduced that the

person who gave resignation on their own from 07.02.1975 to June

1976 and who were appointed after break in some other institution

would not be entitled to the protection given by G.R. dated 27.04.1981.

He submits that when G.R. dated 27.04.1981 does not make any such

exception, assigning such reason in the letter dated 29.10.1983 is

contrary to the policy.



9.    The petitioner was required to approach this Court as he was not

given benefits of continuation of service. This Court in WP/350/2009

directed the respondents to decide the representation dated 03.11.2008

and now by way of letter dated 20.02.2009, it was informed that the

petitioner was not granted benefit only because his service was in two

different colleges and not under the same management.            He thus

submits that the said action is totally arbitrary and deserved to be

quashed and set aside.
                                    (9)                 WP-3771-2009


10.    It is specific case that the petitioner was appointed on 20.07.1973

as a part-time lecturer in English subject on salary of Rs.1500/- per

month. By order dated 21.02.1974, he was made full time teacher and

promoted as Teacher in English subject for the pay-scale of Rs.250-400

from    01.02.1974.   Thereafter,   by    another   communication      dated

07.10.1974, his promotion was approved. It is thereafter on 07.02.1975,

the new pattern of education i.e. 10+2+3 was introduced and the

petitioner became surplus. The petitioner without any fault on his part is

made to suffer. He thus submits that the petition deserves to be allowed.



11.    Learned AGP vehemently argued that the petitioner does not fulfill

any of the criterias laid down in the Government Resolution dated

27.04.1981 and 29.10.1983. He is not entitled to get any benefit. The

main condition for protection of service is that the teacher should be in

service on or before 07.02.1975 and in continuous service for two years

upto the end of academic year 1975-76 in a college or colleges under the

same management. In the present case, the petitioner was issued one

month termination notice terminating the service from 29.07.1974
                                  ( 10 )               WP-3771-2009


which was thereafter extended till 30.09.1976. Thereafter, the petitioner

applied pursuant to the advertisement issued by one Marathwada

Shikshan Prasarak Mangal, Shivaji College Parbhani for his appointment

as lecturer. The petitioner was selected pursuant to the said selection

process and joined the college from 06.12.1976. Since the petitioner

joined the college under a different management, he was not entitled to

get the benefit of Government Resolution dated 27.04.1981. The learned

AGP thus submits that as per the policy of 1981 itself, a teacher would

not be entitled to protection if he is not in continuous service and

secondly, if he has joined the service under a different management.


12.   The chronology of events, as reflected from the record, clearly

shows that on 20.07.1973, the petitioner was appointed as part-time

teacher purely on temporary basis. On 21.02.1974, he was appointed as

full time teacher. However, the said appointment was also on purely on

temporary basis. On 07.10.1974, his promotion was sanctioned. First

resolution came to be issued on 07.02.1975 introducing the higher

secondary pattern. In the said G.R., there was no provision about
                                   ( 11 )               WP-3771-2009


protection of the teachers etc. It was stated in clause-VII that status quo

be maintained with regard to pay scales and service conditions of

lecturers teaching higher secondary standards XI and XII located in the

colleges. On 16.05.1975, circular came to be issued granting protection

to service conditions and approved scale in respect of teaching staff in

colleges as it stood on 07.02.1975. The appendix-C to the said circular

prescribed that, the protection of service conditions and approved

college scale of lecturers has been granted in respect of teaching staff as

it stood on 07.02.1975. It was further directed to the management not to

appoint any additional staff in the UGC pay scale for standard XI and

XII.

13.    By resolution dated 11.06.1976 it was prescribed that the college

teachers who were in service on or before 07.02.1976 and were in

continuous service upto the end of academic year 1975-76 in colleges

under the same management, but had not completed two years of

continuous service upto the end of academic year 1975-76, would be

governed accordingly. Thus, for the first time, the policy dated

11.06.1976 made it made clear that a person has to be in continuous
                                    ( 12 )               WP-3771-2009


service for two years and should be absorbed in the same management.

In the present case it is clearly seen that the petitioner was not working

under the same management after his services came to an end in the

earlier college.

14.   So far as argument that the communication dated 29.10.1983 is

contrary to the Government Resolutions and circulars etc. is concerned,

this Court does not find the submission to be correct. Clauses 3 and 4 of

G.R. dated 29.10.1983 are not newly introduced, but are based on the

earlier policy of the Government as stated in earlier resolution. In the

present case, there is no dispute that initially, the petitioner was working

in Respondent No.4 college and later on he joined in a different college

i.e. Respondent No.5 under a different management. Clause 7-A of the

Resolution dated 07.02.1975 to the effect that the status quo be

maintained with regard to the pay scales and service conditions of the

lecturers teaching higher secondary standard XI and XII attached to

colleges cannot be read in isolation.


15.   The petitioner sought to rely upon the judgment in the case of

Vasant Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [2005
                                        ( 13 )             WP-3771-2009


(1) Mh.L.J. 1119]. In the said case, the petitioner had joined the service

in a college and in the year 1981-82, he was declared surplus. Being a

surplus teacher, the Deputy Director had sent him to another college,

and it is in that view, pay protection was directed to be granted in

accordance with the policy.


16.          In the present case, facts are different. The petitioner himself

joined another college on his own. He joined another college i.e. Shivaji

College Parbhani on 06.12.1976. In the said college, he worked till

31.03.2009.


17.          This Court does not find any force in the argument that the

petitioner falls in category (3) as per G.R. dated 11.06.1976. This Court

thus finds that there is no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition

deserves to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed with no order as

to costs.


18.          Rule stands discharged.


[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]                          [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
D.A.ETHAPE