VIJAY MAROTIRAO WAGHMAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:43106-DB

                                                 1              WP / 7824 / 2019


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 7824 OF 2019

              Vijay S/o Marotirao Waghmare,
              Age 45 years, Occu. Service,
              R/o. Chapoli, Tq. Chakur,
              District – Latur                                      .. Petitioner

                     Versus

              1] The State of Maharashtra,
                 Through the Secretary,
                 Higher & Technical Education,
                 Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.

              2] The Director,
                 Higher & Technical Education Department,
                 Pune

              3] The Joint Director,
                 Higher & Technical Education Department,
                 Latur Region, Latur

              4] The Director,
                 Board of College & University Development,
                 Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University,
                 “Dnyanteerth”, Vishnupuri,
                 Tq. & Dist. Nanded

              5] Swami Ramanad Teerth Marathwada University,
                 “Dnyanteerth”, Vishnupuri,
                 Tq. & Dist. Nanded,
                 Through its Registrar

              6] Navyuvak Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
                 Chapoli, Tq. Chakur,
                 District – Latur
                 Through its Secretary

              7] Sanjivani College, Chapoli,
                 Tq. Chakur, District – Latur,
                 Through its Principal

              8] Commissioner Backward Class Cell,
                 Aurangabad (BCC)

              (Amendment made as per Order dated 08.12.2025)        .. Respondents
                                 2                     WP / 7824 / 2019


                                      ...
  Advocate for petitioner : Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh h/f. Mr. A.D. Kawre
                            and Mr. V.P. Deshmukh
       AGP for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 8 : Mr. N.S. Tekale
                   Respondent no. 4 - served – absent.
              Advocate for respondent no. 5 : Mr. U.S. Malte
 Advocate for respondent nos. 6 and 7 : Mr. S.B. Solanke i/by Solanke and
                                    Associates
                                      ...

                   CORAM                     : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                               JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.

                   RESERVED ON               : 15 SEPTEMBER 2026
                   PRONOUNCED ON             : 22 SEPTEMBER, 2026

JUDGMENT (PER – JITENDRA JAIN, J.) :

             This petition challenges order passed by respondent no. 5

– University dated 14.01.2019, whereby the proposal sent by the

management for approval of the petitioner’s appointment, has been

rejected. The petition further prays for a direction to treat the petitioner

as a lecturer in Hindi on the post meant for S.C. category from the date

of his appointment i.e. from 29.01.2004 and for consequential benefits

thereof. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.


Brief facts :

2.           Pursuant to an advertisement dated 03.10.2003, issued by

the management for the post of Lecturer for Hindi subject, the

petitioner was appointed on 29.01.2004. Though the post was for S.T.

- category, since no candidates from this category applied, the

petitioner being from S.C. - category was selected.               The post

advertised was for full time lecturer.     In the appointment letter, the
                                3                     WP / 7824 / 2019


petitioner was shown as belonging to S.T. category on full time basis,

though he belonged to S.C. - category.


3.          On 28.07.2004, the respondent University, however,

approved the appointment of the petitioner for the year 2003-2004 on

clock hour basis (CHB). In the said approval letter, it was mentioned

that in the subsequent academic year, the appointment should be

made by way of advertisement.


4.          Respondent – management, by various letters dated

27.06.2006, 24.12.2007, 07.03.2008 and 12.06.2009 addressed letters

to respondent no. 3 – Joint Director seeking approval for advertiement

for filling the post for teaching Hindi subject. However, no response

was given to these letters by the Joint Director – respondent no. 3.


5.          On 10.10.2007, the respondent – University addressed a

letter to the management exempting the petitioner from the condition of

acquiring NET qualification. On 09.08.2007, UGC also addressed a

letter to the management exempting the petitioner from clearing NET

exam since the petitioner had cleared M.Phil. exam.


6.          On 09.04.2009, the management wrote a letter to the

University seeking full time approval of the petitioner since the

petitioner had qualified as M.Phil. However, by communication dated

25.07.2009, University approved the full time post of two other lecturers
                                4                    WP / 7824 / 2019


except the petitioner. In this communication, it was mentioned that the

petitioner cannot be considered since he does not belong to S.T.

category. This order has not been challenged by the petitioner.


7.           On 20.07.2010, the management made a request to the

University for approval for interchange of the post reserved for S.T. -

category to S.C. - category.


8.           It is important to note that UGC in its meeting dated

12.08.2010, resolved that the candidates having M.Phil. Degree on or

before 10.07.2009, shall remain exempted from the requirement of

passing NET for the purpose of appointment as lecturer. The petitioner

qualified for M.Phil. examination on 10.07.2009 and, therefore, was

exempted from clearing NET.



9.           On 20.06.2016, the management sought approval of the

University on full time basis on the ground that he acquired M.Phil.

Qualification and since interchange has been approved, he is qualified

for said post.


10.          The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3863 of 2018, seeking

a direction against the respondent – University, to consider the above

proposal dated 20.06.2016 of the petitioner for the post of full time

Lecturer in Hindi subject. The High Court by its order dated 14.01.2019
                                 5                     WP / 7824 / 2019


in Writ Petition No. 3863 of 2018, directed the University to decide the

petitioner’s application dated 20.06.2016.


11.         On 14.01.2019 itself, the respondent-University rejected

the petitioner’s proposal seeking approval as a full-time lecturer based

on the interchange of categories. The reason stated in the impugned

order is that, as per the Government Resolution dated 05.12.1994, the

post of Lecturer reserved for the S.T. - category should have been

advertised for a period of five years and it is only thereafter, if no

candidate from the S.T. - category is available, that the post can be

filled in by persons from different category person.


12.         It is against the above backdrop that the petitioner has

approached this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 14.01.2019

and for necessary direction for approval of his appointment as a

Lecturer with consequential benefits.


13.         Mr.   Deshmukh,     learned      counsel   for   the   petitioner

submitted that since interchangeability had been approved, the

petitioner is qualified for being appointed as a full-time Lecturer from

2004 against the S.C. - category. He further submitted that the

advertisement could not be published because the Joint Director did

not grant approval, despite various letters addressed by the

management from 2006 to 2009. He submitted that the petitioner
                                       6                        WP / 7824 / 2019


should not be made to suffer for the dereliction of the duty cast upon

the Joint Director. He further submitted that the petitioner has cleared

M.Phil. in 2007 and was, therefore, exempted from clearing NET exam

for the present post. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner

had been in continuous and regular service for more than 12 years and

had been working on a full-time basis. He, therefore, prayed that the

petition be allowed.


14.            Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision

of the Nagpur Bench of this Court in Madhuri Deshmukh v. State of

Maharashtra1, and the decision of the Principal Bench of this Court in

Dr. Satyavati Joshi v. State of Maharashtra2.


15.            Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-University

heavily relied upon the reply filed by the University and submitted that

the petitioner had neither qualified the NET examination nor submitted

a caste-validity certificate for his appointment. Learned counsel for the

University further submitted that the petitioner was not appointed as a

full-time teacher but on a clock-hour basis and was, therefore, not

eligible for appointment as a full-time Lecturer. He submitted that the

University had, from time to time, addressed various letters to the

management stating that the petitioner’s appointment could not be

approved since he belonged to the S.C. - category, whereas the post

1 Writ Petition No. 1213 of 2009, decided on 24 February 2017
2 Writ Petition No. 1741 of 2020, decided on 18 July 2024
                                          7                    WP / 7824 / 2019


was reserved for the S.T. - category.                 He further relied upon the

minutes of the meeting dated 21.10.2015, in which the petitioner was

present and the reason for non-approval of his appointment was

communicated to him. He submitted that the petitioner had not

challenged this decision.             He further submitted that the petition raises

disputed questions of fact, as the management itself has stated in its

reply that the petitioner’s services were terminated from 2012–2013

onwards. He submitted that disputed questions of fact cannot be gone

into in a writ petition. Learned counsel for the University, therefore,

prayed for dismissal of the petition.


16.             Learned counsel for the respondent-University relied upon

the decision of the Supreme Court in P. Suseela and Others v.

University Grants Commission3, and the decision of this Bench dated

01.04.2019 in Shankar Holkar v. State of Maharashtra4.


17.             The learned AGP appearing for the State fairly submitted

that there was nothing on record to explain why the Joint Director had

not responded to the various letters addressed by the management

seeking permission to advertise the post. He, however, submitted that

since the petitioner was appointed against a post reserved for the S.T. -

category though he belonged to S.C. - category and his services had



3   (2015) 8 SCC 129
4   Writ Petition No. 11642 of 2016
                                8                      WP / 7824 / 2019


been terminated by the management, the present petition deserves to

be dismissed.


18.         Learned counsel for the management submitted that the

petitioner has not worked in the management’s college from 2012–

2013 onwards and, therefore, no case was made out for allowing the

petition. He further submitted that the petitioner had used pressure

tactics for seeking approval of the post by threatening to commit

suicide. It was under these circumstances that the management had to

forward his proposal to the University for approval.


19.         We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

University and the management, as well as the learned AGP for the

State.


20.         It is settled position in law that an order has to stand on its

own leg and cannot be improvised by filing further affidavits. In the

present case, the order dated 14.01.2019 only rejects the petitioner’s

proposal on the ground that the conditions stipulated in the

Government Resolution dated 05.121994 had not been complied with.

No other reason has been stated by the University in the said order.

Therefore, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the

University on grounds not mentioned in the impugned order, cannot be

considered and entertained.
                                9                   WP / 7824 / 2019



21.         As per the Government Resolution dated 05.12.1994, if a

post reserved for a particular category could not be filled in by

candidates belonging to that category, then the post can be filled in by

selecting a candidate from another category. However, in the

subsequent years, the management must advertise the post for the

original category.   It is only thereafter, if no candidate from that

category is available for a period of 5 years, that the management can

seek interchangeability and appoint a person from another category.


22.         In the instant case, on 26.07.2009, the University

expressly stated the reasons for rejecting the management’s proposal

to appoint the petitioner, namely that he had been appointed against a

post reserved for the S.T. - category, though he belonged to the S.C. -

category. It is important to note that this communication dated 25 July

2009 has not been challenged by the petitioner.


23.         On 21.10.2015, in a meeting attended by the officials of

the University, the college and the petitioner, it was resolved that the

petitioner’s appointment could not be considered for approval since no

advertisement had been issued during the academic years 2005–2006,

2007–2008 and 2008–2009. It was further resolved that, since the

petitioner had been appointed on a clock-hour basis, he could not be

considered on a full-time basis.    The said resolution refers to the
                                10                   WP / 7824 / 2019


Government Resolution dated 05.12.1994, on the basis of which the

petitioner’s appointment could not be approved. The said resolution

has been signed by the petitioner. It has neither been challenged by

the petitioner nor disclosed by him in the petition. The respondent-

University has placed the said resolution on record. Be that as it may,

in the absence of any challenge to the said decision, whereby the

request for approval was expressly rejected by relying upon the

Government Resolution dated 05.12.1994, the petitioner cannot now

challenge the impugned order dated 14.01.2019, which has been

passed on the basis of this very same Government Resolution. The

petitioner is deemed to have accepted the applicability of the

Government Resolution dated 05.12.1994 and is, therefore, now

estopped from challenging the same.


24.         Even otherwise, the petitioner has not challenged the

University’s order dated 28.07.2004 granting him approval on a clock-

hour basis. Nothing has been brought on record to show that his

appointment was approved by the University on a full-time basis. The

petitioner’s submission that he had actually worked on a full-time basis

cannot be accepted in view of the express written order dated

28.07.2004. Furthermore, the petitioner was appointed against a post

reserved for the S.T. - category and, therefore, in absence of any

advertisement indicating that, despite efforts made for five years, the
                                 11                   WP / 7824 / 2019


management could not secure a candidate from the S.T. - category, the

contention that the petitioner should be considered cannot be

accepted.


25.           The University, vide communications dated 15 th October

2003, 24th    July 2004, 20th December 2005, 8th June 2006 and 5

January 2007, had repeatedly informed the management of the

reasons for not approving the petitioner on a full-time basis against the

S.T. - category since the petitioner belonged to S.C. - category. There

are further communications dated 12th April 2008 and 25th July 2009 to

the same effect.


26.           In our view, since the petitioner’s appointment was not on

a full-time basis but on a clock-hour basis, and since he was not

appointed against a post reserved for the S.C. - category but against a

post reserved for the S.T. - category, to which he does not belong, even

on this count, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be considered.


27.           Learned counsel for the respondent-University is also

justified in submitting that the management had terminated the

petitioner’s services from 2013–2014, which is disputed by the

petitioner.   Furthermore, the management has alleged that threats

given by the petitioner compelled it to forward his proposal, which

allegation has also been denied by the petitioner.      The documents
                                 12                   WP / 7824 / 2019


annexed by the petitioner to demonstrate that he had worked on a full-

time basis, are also disputed by the college on the ground that they are

fabricated. The issue whether though his appointment was on CHB, he

actually worked on full time basis, would require this Court to enter

arena of facts which cannot be gone into in these proceedings. These

disputed questions of facts cannot be examined by this Court in a writ

petition. Therefore, even on this count, the prayer made in the petition

cannot be considered.


28.         The judgments relied upon by the parties are not

applicable to the facts of the present case and are, therefore, not being

dealt with in the present decision.


29.         For all the above reasons, the petition is dismissed.




       [ JITENDRA JAIN ]                   [ KISHORE C. SANT ]
            JUDGE                                JUDGE

arp/