SHIVNAGAR VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL AND ORS.versusSHARAD SHANKARRAO KARNE AND ANR.

                                                                             23-WP-6111-10-Final.doc



                                                                                        Sayali


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SAYALI                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
DEEPAK
UPASANI
Digitally signed by
SAYALI DEEPAK
UPASANI                               WRIT PETITION NO. 6111 OF 2010
Date: 2026.02.12
19:21:29 +0530




                      Shivnagar Vidya Prasarak Mandal and
                      Others                                          … Petitioners
                                V/s.
                      Sharad Shankarrao Karne and Others              … Respondents

                      Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sugandh
                      B. Deshmukh, with Prathamesh Bhargude, for
                      Petitioners.
                      Ms. Vaishnavi M. Gujrathi i/b Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar,
                      for Respondent No. 1.


                                                   CORAM        : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                   DATED        : FEBRUARY 12, 2026

                      P.C.:

                      1.      The   present   petition   is   filed   by   the   management
                      challenging the judgment and order dated 22 April 2010 passed
                      by the College Tribunal in Appeal No. 13 of 2007. By the said
                      order, the Tribunal set aside the termination of respondent no. 1
                      and directed his reinstatement with full back wages. The
                      management contends that the Tribunal overlooked material
                      facts relating to the nature of appointment, the requirement of




                                                         1
                                                     23-WP-6111-10-Final.doc


statutory qualifications, and the effect of absence of University
approval. The controversy, therefore, turns upon the legal
character of the appointment and the eligibility of respondent no.
1 to hold the post.

2.     The record shows that respondent no. 1 was first appointed
on 01 May 1995 as a Lecturer. The appointment order clearly
stated that the appointment was purely temporary, for a period of
one year, and subject to approval by the University. A second
appointment order dated 01 August 1996 carried identical terms.
Thus, from the beginning, the nature of appointment was neither
permanent nor on probation. It was time bound and conditional.
It is also material that in August 2005 the management issued a
fresh advertisement for the very same post and respondent no. 1
participated in that selection process. Participation in the fresh
recruitment process indicates that even he understood that his
earlier appointment did not confer any permanent right.

3.     The management has relied upon Government Resolution
dated 18 December 2006 prescribing qualifications for the post of
Lecturer. It is stated that as per the staffing pattern approved by
the State Government, the University, and in consonance with
AICTE norms, the institution was required to appoint two
Assistant Professors and four Lecturers. Out of these, two posts
were reserved for candidates belonging to backward class
category. The appointments were required to be made through a
duly    constituted   University       Selection   Committee.         The




                                   2
                                                  23-WP-6111-10-Final.doc


management asserts that four candidates were appointed after
following this procedure. This aspect is relevant because it shows
that once statutory norms and reservation requirements were
implemented, continuation of an ineligible person would have
disrupted the approved staffing pattern.

4.    According to the management, respondent no. 1 did not
possess the minimum qualification of first class in master’s
Degree as required under the applicable norms. A resolution
dated 17 May 2007 recorded that he lacked the required
qualification. The record further indicates that he had earlier
been informed to improve his academic qualification. Despite
such opportunity, he did not do so. When an apex regulatory
body prescribes minimum standards, the institution cannot
ignore them. If the management had continued him despite lack
of eligibility, it would have acted contrary to binding norms.
Therefore, termination was justified on the ground of want of
qualification and absence of approval.

5.    Respondent no. 1 challenged the termination by filing
Appeal No. 13 of 2007 before the College Tribunal. The
management filed its written statement and contested the claim.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted reinstatement with
full back wages. The present petition questions the correctness of
that direction, particularly on the ground that the Tribunal failed
to appreciate the temporary nature of appointment and the effect
of statutory qualifications.




                                 3
                                                 23-WP-6111-10-Final.doc


6.    This Court, by order dated 07 January 2011, noted that an
issue regarding whether a temporary appointment could be
treated as one on probation was pending before a Larger Bench.
Hearing of the petition was therefore deferred. The legal position
now stands clarified.

7.    Though learned counsel for respondent no. 1 initially
appeared, he has placed on record communications dated 14
January 2026 and 02 February 2026 issued to respondent no. 1.
The notices were returned with endorsement that the addressee
was not available at the given address. These communications
are taken on record and marked for identification. As counsel has
no further instructions, the matter is decided on merits based on
available record.

8.    A careful reading of the appointment orders shows that
respondent no. 1 was appointed through a Local Selection
Committee. Such committee is empowered to make temporary
appointments for a short duration, generally less than one year.
In contrast, a permanent appointment requires recommendation
of a properly constituted University Selection Committee with a
different composition and statutory backing. The distinction is
not procedural alone. It determines the legal status of the
appointee. In the present case, the procedure for permanent
recruitment was never followed in respect of respondent no. 1.

9.    AICTE, being the apex technical education body, prescribes
minimum qualifications for teaching posts. If the AICTE



                                4
                                                 23-WP-6111-10-Final.doc


handbook mandates a first class Master’s Degree in Business
Management for the post of Lecturer, that requirement binds the
institution. An employee who does not possess the minimum
eligibility cannot claim a right to continue. Eligibility is not a
procedural formality. It goes to the root of appointment. Courts
cannot direct reinstatement of a person who lacks statutory
qualification.

10.   The appointment orders also state that the appointment
was subject to approval by the University. In the case of college
teachers, University approval is not automatic. The University
examines the candidate’s qualifications and compliance with
prescribed norms. Unlike appointments under the MEPS Act
where the Education Officer’s approval may follow a different
scheme, here the University plays a decisive role. If approval is
refused or not granted on account of lack of qualification, the
appointment does not mature into a valid one. Unless such
refusal is set aside in appropriate proceedings, the employee
cannot assert that he stood duly appointed.

11.   The legal position regarding temporary appointment is
settled by the Full Bench of this Court in Ramkrishna Chauhan vs
Seth D. M. High School and Others, reported in 2013 (2) Mh. L.J.
713. The Full Bench has held that when an employee accepts an
appointment expressly described as temporary and subject to
conditions, he cannot later contend that it should be treated as
one on probation merely because the vacancy was permanent.




                                5
                                                    23-WP-6111-10-Final.doc


There is no automatic conversion. There is no legal fiction that
every    appointment     against   a   clear   vacancy    is   deemed
probationary. The terms of appointment bind both sides.

12.     In the present case, respondent no. 1 accepted temporary
appointments with clear conditions. He did not possess the
required qualification as per AICTE norms. His appointment was
subject to University approval. In such circumstances, the
Tribunal could not have granted reinstatement with full back
wages. The direction overlooks statutory requirements and
binding precedent. The order of the Tribunal therefore cannot be
sustained.

13.     Hence, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘a’.




                                               (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                   6