Bombay High Court

SUDARSHANA SUHAS PATHAKversusSECRETARY, GOKHALE EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ORS.

Decided: 31 August 2026
Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner’s claim is barred by laches and her own acceptance of later appointments, and the tribunal’s order is upheld.

Summary

Mrs. Sudarshana Suhas Pathak, a lecturer employed by Gokhale Education Society colleges, was terminated in 1998 and later faced conversion of her appointment to a clock‑hour basis. She challenged the termination and subsequent appointment of a Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidate to her post through various appeals before the University Tribunal, which dismissed her appeal on the ground that the post was reserved for an ST candidate. During the pendency of her writ petition, a grievance committee under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, recommended that her post was wrongly reserved and that she be treated as confirmed; the university’s management council accepted this recommendation but later refused to implement it. The petitioner sought mandamus to enforce the committee’s recommendation, despite having accepted a later appointment and having superannuated. The High Court held that the petition was barred by laches, that the petitioner’s acceptance of subsequent appointments precluded her claim, and that the tribunal’s order was not perverse or beyond jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the grievance committee’s recommendation, accepted by the university management council, is binding and enforceable by mandamus.
Whether the petitioner’s acceptance of a subsequent appointment and superannuation bars her claim for reinstatement.
Whether the tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal on the basis of reservation for an ST candidate.
Whether the delay of 22 years amounts to laches, precluding equitable relief.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 — s. 57, 57(2)

Subjects

termination of service
reservation policy
Scheduled Tribe
grievance committee
mandamus
laches
university appointments
tribunal jurisdiction

Judgment

WP-7523-2003 (J) C2.doc

Digitally
signed by IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HUSENBASHA
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN
RAHAMAN NADAF
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
NADAF Date:
2026.09.01
20:03:05
+0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 7523 OF 2003

Mrs. Sudarshana Suhas Pathak )
Residing at B-2/12, Purbi Apartment )
Shanti Park, Upnagar, Nashik 422106. ) ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Secretary, Gokhale Education Society, )
Prin. T.A. Kulkarni Vidyanagar, H.P.T. )
Campus, Nashik 422 005. )

2. The Principal, Gokhale Education )
Society’s Arts, Commerce & Science )
College, Srivardhan, Raigadh, 402 110. )

3. Registrar, University of Mumbai, )
M.G. Road, Mumbai. )
4. Jt. Director, Higher Education, )
Elphinstone Technical School Compound )
3, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400 001. )

5. State of Maharashtra, through the )
Department of Higher & Technical )
Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032.)

6. P.U. Ahire, G.E.S. Arts, Commerce )
& Science College, Srivardhan, )
Raigadh 402 110. ) ...Respondents
***
Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar a/w Mr. Sudhanva Bedekar for the Petitioner.
Mr. Graham Francis i/b Mr. V.S. Talkute for the Respondent Nos. 1
and 2.
None for the Respondent No.3.
Ms. Kavita Solunke, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. S.L. Babar, AGP for the
Respondent/State.
***

Husen 1
WP-7523-2003 (J) C2.doc

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026
JUDGMENT :

1. The Petitioner was a lecturer in Respondent No.1-Educational
Institute. Respondent No. 2 is the Principal of the College.

2. The Petitioner is challenging Order dated 23.04.2003 passed by
Presiding Officer, Mumbai University and College Tribunal (‘the
Tribunal, for short) in Appeal No.98 of 2002, dismissing the appeal
filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner had challenged in the said
appeal, termination of her services by oral Order dated 16.10.2002.

BRIEF BACKGROUND

3. According to Petitioner, she was appointed as a lecturer in
Marathi initially as part-time lecturer at Jawahar College run by
Respondent No.1, affiliated to University of Mumbai w.e.f.
01.08.1994 till 20.04.1995 and continued in the said post till
20.04.1996. That she was appointed through duly constituted
Selection Committee and the appointment was approved by the
University. That thereafter, she was appointed in the College at
Nashik Road run by Respondent No.1, which was affiliated to Pune
University. Later on she was appointed at H.P.T. College at Nashik as
full-time lecturer on probation for 2 years on 16.07.1996, till the end
of academic year 1997-98. This appointment was also through duly
constituted Selection Committee. That she was then appointed at
Respondent No. 2 College at Srivardhan, Raigad as full-time lecturer
in Marathi w.e.f. 17.07.1998 and she continued to hold the said post

Husen 2
WP-7523-2003 (J) C2.doc

till her oral termination.

4. It appears from record that Petitioner was terminated on
12.03.1998, which termination, she had challenged in the Tribunal
belatedly after 5½ years, but the Tribunal refused to condone delay.
This refusal was challenged by the Petition by filing Writ Petition No.
10682 of 2004, which came to be dismissed on 21.10.2005.

5. In the meantime, her appointment was converted from full-
time to clock hour basis from 16.06.2001. Being aggrieved by the
said order, the Petitioner had filed Appeal No.73 of 2001 before the
Tribunal. This appeal was compromised and an order was passed on
31.07.2002 by which the Respondent-Management agreed to
continue the Petitioner in the post which she was holding. However,
it was agreed that it will not prevent the Respondent-Management
from appointing a person from Scheduled Tribes (ST) category to the
post held by Petitioner by following due procedure and on such
appointment, the Petitioner’s services shall come to an end. It was
agreed that in case her services are brought to an end in the manner
agreed, it shall be open to the Petitioner to challenge the termination
and contentions and grounds raised in the appeal were kept open.

6. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had already issued an advertisement
dated 27.06.2002 calling for walk-in-interview pursuant to which
present Respondent No. 6 has been appointed in the post held by the
Petitioner. Respondent No. 6 belongs to ST category and is fully
qualified for being appointed to the post in question.

7. According to Petitioner, pursuant to the compromise, in view of

Husen 3
WP-7523-2003 (J) C2.doc

appointment of Respondent No. 6, the Petitioner was prevented from
resuming duties on 16.10.2002 and it led to filing of the present
Appeal No. 98 of 2002 in question.

8. The Respondent-Management appeared in Appeal No. 98 of
2002 and contested the same.

9. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of evidence, the
Tribunal held that it does not have jurisdiction to decide which post
should be reserved for which category. It however held that the post
in question was reserved for ST candidate and therefore,
appointment of Respondent No. 6 is not required to be disturbed and
ultimately dismissed the appeal.

10. In these circumstances, the Petitioner has filed present petition
challenging the dismissal of her appeal by impugned order dated
23.04.2003. Notice before admission was issued by this Court on
11.11.2003. However, no interim relief was granted.

11. On 30.11.2004, it was brought to the notice of the Court that
during pendency of the petition, the grievance committee constituted
under Section 57 of Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (‘the said Act’
for short) has given a report dated 29.04.2004 on the Petitioner's
application / grievance, recommending that the post on which
Petitioner was working was wrongly reserved. It has come on record
that this recommendation of the grievance committee was placed
before the management council of the University who accepted the
recommendation on 31.07.2004 and it was informed to the
Respondent-Management on 03.09.2004.

Husen 4
WP-7523-2003 (J) C2.doc

12. In view of such situation, this Court was informed that the
Respondent-Management has not yet considered the
recommendation and therefore Advocate for the Respondent-
Management sought time. On 10.06.2005, the petition was admitted.

13. Advocate for the Respondent-Management placed on record
additional compilation of documents in December 2016, which
compilation is considered by consent of learned counsel of both the
parties.

14. On 12.12.2004, the Respondent No. 1 in its governing body
meeting resolved that it is not possible to accept the recommendation
of grievance committee.

SUBMISSIONS

15. Learned counsel Dr. Warunjikar, appearing for the Petitioner
submitted as under.

15.1. That the grievance committee’s report and its due acceptance
by the management council of the university has given finality to the
recommendation, which is not challenged by the Respondent-
Management.

15.2. That since the grievance committee has recommended in
favour of the Petitioner which recommendation is accepted by the
management council of the University, it attains finality under Section
57(2) of the said Act and it is not open for the Management to
resolve not to implement it.

Husen 5
WP-7523-2003 (J) C2.doc

15.3. That during pendency of the petition, the Petitioner has
attained the age of superannuation on 19.08.2022 and therefore
there is no question of reinstatement.

15.4. That since the contentions in the earlier Appeal No. 73 of 2001
was kept open, it is not open for the Respondent-Management to
simply resolve in its governing body meeting that it is not possible for
the Management to accept the recommendations.

15.5. That the scope of the present petition has been already
enlarged by order of this Court dated 30.11.2004 and therefore, the
petition be allowed setting aside impugned order and by setting aside
the termination thereby granting full back wages.

15.6. He relied on Shri Prakash S/o Sambhaji Waghmare Vs. The
State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 11906 of 2016 and
other Petitions, Judgment dated 02.11.2018), in support of his
contention that since the grievance committee is not constituted
under executive instructions and is a creature of statute and its
recommendation accepted by management council becomes final
decision binding on the parties.

16. On the other hand, Mr. Francis appearing for the Respondent-
Management submitted as under.

16.1. That the Petitioner has accepted appointment in various
colleges under various appointment orders and scope of this petition
is not at all expanded.

Husen 6
WP-7523-2003 (J) C2.doc

16.2. That the first order of termination dated 12.03.1998 was
challenged belatedly in Writ Petition No. 10682 of 2004, which was
dismissed by order dated 21.10.2005, recording that after the order
of earlier termination, the Petitioner had sought and granted fresh
appointment against a reserved post and the fresh appointment was
also terminated which is challenged before University Tribunal.
Reference is made to the present petition which was pending at the
relevant time.

16.3. That therefore, even though the contentions are kept open, the
act of the Petitioner accepting subsequent appointment against
reserve post, will disentitle her from seeking implementation of the
grievance committee’s recommendations.

16.4. That Respondent No. 6 has been appointed by following due
procedure and it is approved and it will not be just and proper to
disturb that appointment after lapse of long time of 24 years.

16.5. That the Tribunal has already held under Issue No. 2 that post
in question was reserved for ST candidate which is in conflict with
the recommendation given by grievance committee. In such situation,
those recommendations cannot be implemented in the present
petition.

16.6. Relying on an affidavit filed by the Petitioner during pendency
of the petition, he submitted that Petitioner has worked during
pendency of the petition on temporary posts in many other institutes
and received salary.

Husen 7
WP-7523-2003 (J) C2.doc

16.7. Lastly he prayed for dismissal of the petition, underlining
limited scope of interference.

REASONS AND CONCLUSION

17. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

18. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the order dated
30.11.2004 passed by this Court cannot be considered as expanding
the scope of the petition. For the purpose of clarity, the said order is
reproduced below:

"CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J.

DATE : 30th November, 2004.

PC:

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the
Grievance Committee has passed the order in the
application filed by the petitioner by which they have
recorded a finding that the post on which the petitioner
was working all these years, was wrongly reserved for
reserved category and have recommended to the
Respondent-Institution that the petitioner be treated as
confirmed. The respondent-Institution has not yet
considered the recommendations made by the Grievance
Committee. In view of this, Mr. Mehere, learned counsel
for the respondent-Institution, seeks eight weeks time.

3. Stand over for eight weeks."

19. It is therefore clear that on being informed about the decision
of the grievance committee, this Court only granted time to the
advocate for the Respondent-Institution to respond. This Court has
not expressed any opinion on the said decision of the grievance
committee nor any indication is made that such decision of the

Husen 8
WP-7523-2003 (J) C2.doc

grievance committee was made subject matter of this petition.

20. It is also important to note that after decision of the grievance
committee accepted by the management council and its
communication to the Respondent-Institution in September 2004 and
further the stand of the Respondent-Institution taken in December,
2004 that it is not possible to accept the recommendation, the
Petitioner has not amended the petition for last 22 years, nor
pleadings/prayers are added seeking implementation of the said
decision of the grievance committee. Nothing is brought to the notice
of this Court that any independent petition is filed by Petitioner
seeking implementation of the decision of grievance committee.

21. In that view of the matter, the request made at the time of final
hearing after a period of 22 years that mandamus be issued directing
implementation of the grievance committee report, suffers from
laches and long delay. No explanation is given for such delay.

22. In Shri. Prakash S/o Sambhaji Waghmare (Supra) relied upon
by learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court
was considering a batch of petitions filed specifically seeking
implementation of the order of the grievance committee duly
accepted by management council. While considering such specific
prayer/s, as this Court has held that the grievance committee is a
creature of statute, making the decision of management council final
and since there is finality attached to the decision, same would be
binding on the parties.

The facts of the present case are clearly different and
distinguishable, because such prayer for implementation of the

Husen 9
WP-7523-2003 (J) C2.doc

grievance committee report, is neither made in the petition nor any
amendment is sought to that effect, nor any separate petition is filed
for such prayer. In that view of the matter, the said judgment will not
help the Petitioner.

23. Hence, assuming that the management council of the
University has accepted the recommendations in favour of the
Petitioner, since the Petitioner has not taken any action and steps for
its implementation for such 22 years, writ of mandamus cannot be
issued belatedly, after a long lapse of time.

24. Even though liberty was reserved by the Petitioner while
compromising earlier appeal before the Tribunal, that liberty would
apply to the contentions raised in Appeal No.73/2001 and such
liberty cannot be directly imported or taken benefit of in subsequent
Appeal No. 98/2002, which is subject matter of the present petition.

25. It is a matter of record that Petitioner has accepted subsequent
appointment against the post reserved for ST category as also
accepting under compromise that on ST candidate being appointed
by following due procedure, the Petitioner’s service were to come to
an end. Having so accepted, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to
turn around and contend in this petition (arising out of a different
subsequent appeal) that reinstatement be issued. This factual position
is also taken note of by this Court under earlier order dated
21.10.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.10682 of 2004. This Court, in
the said order at the relevant time, clearly observed that "after the
earlier order of termination, the Petitioner sought and was granted
fresh appointment inter alia against a post reserved for the Scheduled

Husen 10
WP-7523-2003 (J) C2.doc

Caste".

26. Viewed in the light of what is observed above, when the
impugned order is perused, it is seen that the Tribunal has taken note
of the earlier compromise in Appeal No. 73 of 2001. The Tribunal has
considered that by following procedure, Respondent No.6 has been
appointed who belongs to ST category as per reservation. On
appreciation of material on record, the Tribunal has clearly held that
records have not been tampered while showing the post as reserved,
as contended by the Petitioner. The Tribunal has also taken note of
the fact that in the appointment letters issued to Petitioners, it is
mentioned that if backward class candidate is appointed, Petitioner
will have to leave her services. The Tribunal has rightly observed that
omission on the part of the University to mention ‘the aspect about
appointment being against reserved post’ will not change or alter the
conditions accepted by the Petitioner under the appointment order.
The Tribunal has also considered that this conditional appointment
has been also recognized in the earlier compromise order passed in
Appeal No. 73 of 2001. The Tribunal has also found that Respondent
No.6 has been appointed by a duly constituted selection committee.

27. It has came on record by way of Petitioner’s affidavit filed
during pendency of the petition, that she has worked in various
institutes and has received remuneration for the same.

28. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons
indicated above, the impugned order does not suffer from any
perversity or jurisdictional error. No case for interference is made out.

29. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.

Husen 11
WP-7523-2003 (J) C2.doc

No order as to costs.

30. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
QR verifiable copy of this order.

(M.M. SATHAYE, J)

Husen 12

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…