Bombay High Court
DADASHEB DEVIDAS KADAMversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
A proposal lacking the Principal's signature is a curable procedural defect and does not preclude the grant of CAS benefits, so the registrar's order was set aside.
Summary
The petitioners, two assistant professors, challenged the refusal of the Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University registrar to grant them benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), alleging procedural irregularities in the committee that evaluated their proposals. The university had rejected their proposals on the ground that the committee’s minutes were not signed by the Principal, who was absent at the time of the meetings. The petitioners relied on the decision in Dr. Silvia Noronha v. Goa University, arguing that the lack of a Principal’s signature should not invalidate a valid proposal under UGC directions. The respondents contended that the Principal’s presence was mandatory for a valid committee decision, and therefore the registrar’s rejection was proper. The Court held that the absence of the Principal’s signature was a technical defect that could be remedied, and ordered the university to consider fresh proposals and grant the CAS benefits from the date the petitioners became eligible. Consequently, the two writ petitions (8751/2021 and 8760/2021) were allowed, while the third writ petition (111/2023) filed by the institution was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The validity of the university registrar's refusal to grant CAS benefits on the ground that the committee proposal lacked the Principal's signature.
- Whether the absence of a Principal in the committee meeting renders the proposal procedurally invalid under UGC directions.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to CAS benefits despite the procedural defect.
Subjects
- Career Advancement Scheme
- CAS
- University Grants Commission
- procedural compliance
- promotion of teachers
- higher education
- university regulations
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42560-DB
1 wp 8751-2021+.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8751 OF 2021
Dr. Dadasaheb Devidasrao Kadam
Age: 43 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. C/o. Near Gajanan Mandir,
Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri,
Dist. Hingoli. …. Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary of
Higher and Technical Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Joint Director
of Higher Education,
Nanded Region, Nanded.
3. The Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada
University, Nanded,
Through its Registrar,
Having Official Address at
Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
4. The Secretary of
Chhatrapati Shahu Shikshan Sanstha,
Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri,
Dist. Hingoli.
5. The Principal,
Narayanrao Waghmare Mahavidyalaya
Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri,
Dist. Hingoli. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8760 OF 2021
2 wp 8751-2021+.odt
Sudhakar s/o Raosaheb Gadhe
Age: 49 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. C/o. Jagal, Near Gajanan Mandir,
Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri,
Dist. Hingoli. …. Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary of
Higher and Technical Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Joint Director
of Higher Education,
Nanded Region, Nanded.
3. The Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada
University, Nanded,
Through its Registrar,
Having Official Address at
Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
4. The Secretary of
Chhatrapati Shahu Shikshan Sanstha,
Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri,
Dist. Hingoli.
5. The Principal,
Narayanrao Waghmare Mahavidyalaya
Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri,
Dist. Hingoli. …. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 111 OF 2023
1. Chhatrapati Shahu Shikshan Sanstha,
Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli.
Through its President.
2. The Principal,
Narayanrao Waghmare Mahavidyalaya
Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri,
3 wp 8751-2021+.odt
Dist. Hingoli. …. Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada
University, Nanded, through Registrar,
2. The Deputy Registrar Academic (Approval)
Division, Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada
University, Nanded.
3. Prakash s/o Sambhaji Waghmare
Age: 51 years, Occu: Service as,
Assistant Professor, History,
R/o. Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri,
Dist. Hingoli. …. Respondents
Mr. Parth Shinde, Advocate h/f Mr G. A. Gadhe, Advocate for the
petitioners in WP/8751/2021 and WP/8760/2021 and for
Respondent No. 3 in WP/111/2023.
Mr. A. R. Kale, Advocate for the Respondent/State in
WP/8751/2021 and WP/8760/2021.
Mr. U. S. Malte, Advocate for Respondent No.3 in WP/8751/2021
and WP/8760/2021 and Respondents No. 1 and 2 in
WP/111/2023.
Mr. N. B. Khandare Senior Advocate h/f Mr. A. G. Chavhan,
Advocate for Respondents No. 4 and 5 in WP/8751/2021 and
WP/8760/2021 and Petitioners in WP/111/2023.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND
AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
Date on which reserved for order : 22nd July, 2026.
Date on which order pronounced : 16th September, 2026.
FINAL ORDER ( PER KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) :-
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Shinde for the petitioners in
Writ Petition Nos. 8751/2021 and 8760/2021, learned AGP
4 wp 8751-2021+.odt
Mr. Kale for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, learned Advocate Mr. Malte
for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Khandare, Senior Advocate for
respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The petitions are taken up for final
disposal by consent of the parties.
2. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 8751/2021 and
8760/2021 have approached this Court challenging refusal of
grant of benefits of CAS, whereas Writ Petition No. 111/2023 is
by the institution challenging the order passed by the grievance
committee granting approval for CAS proposal of respondent
No. 3 - Assistant Professor.
3. Considering that the issue involved is common, all the
petitions are taken up together for final disposal by consent of
the parties.
4. In Writ Petition No. 8751/2021 and 8760/2021 the
petitioners are working as Assistant Professors with the
respondent No. 4 – Chhatrapati Shahu Shikshan Sanstha. The
petitioners in Writ Petition No. 111/2023 are Chhatrapati Shahu
Shikshan Sanstha and its Principal. One Prakash Sambhaji
Waghmare, Assistant Professor who is granted benefit of Career
5 wp 8751-2021+.odt
Advancement Scheme (Hereinafter referred to as “CAS” for short)
and approval by the University is under challenge in this petition
5. The petitioners are challenging the order passed by the
Registrar of the University namely Swami Ramanand Teerth
Marathwada University in the cases of two petitioners wherein,
the Registrar has refused to grant benefit of CAS.
6. The facts in short giving rise to the present petitions are as
under:
. In Writ Petition No. 8751/2021 the order under challenge is
dated 22.07.2019 passed by the respondent No. 3 - Registrar.
Initially the benefit of CAS was approved on 07.09.2018. The
directions are now sought to grant benefit under CAS from 2 nd
stage to 3rd stage. It is the case that, in 2015 the petitioner
became eligible to get first benefit of CAS. His proposal was
submitted through proper channel on 23.04.2018. However, the
petitioner received a communication that petitioner’s proposal is
cancelled. It is further case that, for the period between April -
2013 to June-2013, the petitioner was prevented from signing
the muster. Though they were continued on duty the
6 wp 8751-2021+.odt
management was not co-operating with the University. The
petitioner, therefore, was required to file Writ Petition No.
5609/2014. This Court in the said petition directed the University
to adjudicate the grievance of the petitioners within four months.
When the petitioner approached the grievance forum, no
mechanism was available. The petitioner was therefore
constrained to file one more Writ Petition No. 1561/2017 in this
Court. The management had also filed a petition but that came to
be dismissed. There was also a dispute about amount of HRA
which was disputed by the management. The petitioner was
therefore again required to approach this Court by filing Writ
Petition No. 14975/2017 alongwith two other teachers. This
Court directed the Director of Higher and Technical Education
Department to decide the petitioners’ grievance expeditiously.
The Joint Director directed to submit the HRA proposal of the
petitioner and other teachers for approval. Thus, on this
background the petitioners’ case is that they are being harassed
by the management unnecessarily and no proposal is sent for
CAS. The facts in the Writ Petition No. 8760/2021 are almost
similar.
7 wp 8751-2021+.odt
7. Learned advocate for the petitioners Mr. Shinde relied upon
the judgment in the case of Dr. Silvia Noronha Vs. Goa University
Rep. By its Registrar and Anr.1 It is submitted that the petitioners
on completion of 10 years of service are entitled to get the
benefits of first promotion notionally where no actual post is
available. Thereafter, they are entitled to get the benefits of
second promotion after completion of further 10 years. It is
submitted that, however, by impugned communication the
Registrar of the University rejected the proposals only on
technical ground that the coram of the committee recommending
proposal was not duly constituted and one of the members was
not present.
8. Learned Advocate further submits that as per UGC directions
the coram is required of (a) Principal or Acting Principal, (b)
head of the concerned department from the College and (c) two
subject experts in the concerned subject nominated by the Vice-
Chancellor or Acting Vice-Chancellor from the University panel of
experts. The coram of the committee shall be of three including
one subject expert. It further provides that University nominee
need not be present. He thus submits that, in the present case
1 Writ Petition No.791 of 2011 (High Court of Bombay at Goa)
8 wp 8751-2021+.odt
the, committee’s proposal was not signed by the Principal and it
is only on that the proposals came to be rejected. He thus prays
for setting aside the impugned communication.
9. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Khandare for the respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 vehemently argued that in the committee to send
proposal, Principal is the necessary person. At the relevant time
of sending the proposal dated 23.04.2018, no Principal was in
the office as earlier Principal stood retired on 31.08.2018. The
said Principal was therefore not available in the meetings dated
06.09.2018 and 07.09.2018. Since Principal himself was not
there as President of the committee the proposal could not have
been considered. The Registrar therefore has rightly rejected the
proposals. So far as Writ Petition No. 111/2023 is concerned, he
submits that, in two cases the Registrar has rightly considered
that there was no proper proposal submitted by the College.
However, on the other hand he accepted the proposal only in one
case of respondent No. 3. He thus submits that the
communication dated 20.05.2022 and 06.07.2022 deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
10. Learned Advocate Mr. Malte for respondent No. 3 submits
9 wp 8751-2021+.odt
that, as per Rules the proposal must be sent by the committee
formed in accordance with law. Since in the case of petitioner in
Writ Petition Nos. 8751/2021 and 8760/2021 the proposal was
without signature of the Principal those were rightly not accepted
by the University. So far as Writ Petition No. 111/2023 is
concerned, he justifies the order.
11. Learned A.G.P. prays for passing appropriate order.
12. This Court has gone through the impugned orders passed by
the Registrar. The only reason assigned while rejecting the
proposals is that the proposal is not signed by the Principal as on
the date of committee’s meeting i.e. 05.09.2018 and 06.09.2018.
There was no regular Principal in the College. So far as eligibility
etc. is concerned, this Court finds that there is no dispute.
13. In the case of Dr. Silvia Noronha Vs. Goa University Rep. By
its Registrar and Anr. (supra), this Court at Goa considered the
scheme of CAS for the University teachers. In that case the Court
directed the College to send fresh proposal with direction to the
University to consider the proposals. This Court deems it proper
in the present case to adopt the same course of action.
10 wp 8751-2021+.odt
14. In that backdrop Writ Petition Nos. 8751/2021 and
8760/2021 stands allowed. The impugned order dated
22.07.2019 passed by the respondent No.3 - Registrar is quashed
and set aside. The respondents No. 4 and 5 to forthwith send
proposal for giving CAS benefits to the petitioners from the date
on which they became entitled to get second benefit in the year
2018. The University thereafter within a period of two (2) weeks,
if the petitioners are found otherwise eligible, to accept the
proposal and issue necessary orders.
15. With this, the Writ Petition Nos. 8751/2021 and 8760/2021
stand allowed and disposed off.
16. Needless to say that, all the benefits be given to the
petitioners right from the date on which they became eligible to
get the second benefit of CAS.
17. In view of above, Writ Petition No. 111/2023 does not hold
any merit, the same stands dismissed.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )
P.S.B.
Checking your session…