Bombay High Court
THE PRINCIPAL, RIZVI COLLEGE OF ARTS,SCIENCE and COMversusHASINA HAFIZ SHAIKH AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Because the appointments were purely temporary, made by a non‑prescribed selection committee and the lecturer failed to report for reinstatement, she is not entitled to reinstatement, but is entitled only to salary arrears up to the date of the vacated stay.
Summary
The petitioners, Rizvi College and its management, challenged a tribunal order that reinstated a former lecturer, Mrs. Hasina Hafiz Shaikh, and ordered payment of salary arrears. The lecturer had been appointed on three separate temporary contracts without clearing the NET/SET exam and was terminated each time, the last termination occurring on 27‑04‑2001. The tribunal had directed reinstatement, but the college argued the appointments were temporary, made by a local selection committee, and that the lecturer had not reported for duty after the stay was vacated. The High Court examined the applicability of government resolutions, the doctrine of legitimate expectation, and the requirement of a prescribed selection committee, concluding that the termination was not illegal but the college failed to follow proper procedure for UGC approval. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for reinstatement but ordered payment of salary arrears from 09‑06‑2000 to 16‑12‑2005 with interest.
Issues considered
- Whether a lecturer appointed on a temporary basis without NET/SET qualification can be reinstated after termination.
- Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation applies to the lecturer’s claim of continued service.
- Whether the college is obligated to obtain UGC approval before reinstating the lecturer.
- Whether the lecturer is entitled to salary arrears and interest despite the termination.
- Whether the minority status of the institution affects the appointment and termination process.
- Whether appointments made by a local selection committee are valid under the Maharashtra Universities Act.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- temporary appointment
- NET/SET qualification
- government resolution
- reinstatement
- salary arrears
- legitimate expectation
- minority institution
- selection committee
- University Grants Commission
- termination of service
Judgment
WP 572-2003 (J) C2.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
by
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
HUSENBASHA
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN
RAHAMAN NADAF
NADAF
Date:
2026.09.16 WRIT PETITION NO. 572 OF 2003
19:32:02 +0530
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, 1st 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
WP 572-2003 (J) C2.doc
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 16th 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
first proviso to clause 2 thereunder. Similarly, by the
amendments carried out in 1995 the Commission granted some
concessions in respect of the candidates who possessed the
M.Phil./Ph.D. qualifications or who had submitted their thesis
before the cut off date. There were no promises of any
concession or any relaxation in case of other candidates who
did not have the qualifications 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 modified in the
2000 Regulations in respect of subjects but the Universities'
power to grant such relaxation is removed and the power is
now vested with the Commission. The Government of
Maharashtra, while adopting these Regulations by the
respective resolutions, has not gone beyond the Regulations
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 effect that the candidates not
possessing the NET/SET qualifications 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 18th October, 2001 is unsustainable and the
same is quashed and set aside. We also hold that the cases of
candidates appointed from 12th December, 1999 till 18th 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
Checking your session…