VISHAKHA W/O NIRANJA... v. STATE OF MAHA., THR....

Committee, and grant her all consequential benefits arising out of it; without a period of 8 weeks from the date of passing of the orders by this Hon'ble Court:

3. The present writ petition be allowed with costs.

4. Any other relief this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case be kindly granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice."

4. The brief facts of the present case are as under:

The petitioner, who holds qualifications of M.A. in Home Economics and Ph.D., participated in the selection process for the post of Lecturer in Home Economics pursuant to an advertisement published by respondent No.6 - College on 24/07/1996, for the open category. She was selected and appointed on ad-hoc basis by order dated 01/08/1996. Thereupon, respondent No.4 - University granted ad-hoc approval to her appointment on 20/01/1997. The petitioner's services were confirmed by respondent No.6 - College by letter dated 26/05/1999, w.e.f. 01/08/1998.

5. As there was a condition to avail the benefits of Career Advancement Scheme, the candidate must have qualification of NET (National Eligibility Test) and since University Grants Commission (UGC) did not conduct the NET examination in the subject of 'Home Economics' till the year 2008, the respondent No.4 - University forwarded a proposal to the University Grants Commission (UGC) to grant exemption from NET examination to the petitioner and other similarly situated lecturers. Accordingly, the UGC, vide its

3

communication dated 05.11.2008, granted exemption to the petitioner and other similarly situated lecturers.

6. Since the petitioner was eligible and as the UGC granted exemption from the NET examination, the petitioner claimed placement in higher grade pay-scale. The respondent No.6, therefore, submitted the complete proposal along with necessary documents to the Registrar of the respondent No.5 - Gondwana University, to which the respondent No.6 - College was transferred in the year 2012 from respondent No.4 - University, for taking further necessary action in the matter.

7. Accordingly, the meeting of Selection Committee consisting of five members, including the respondent No.3 - Joint Director of Higher Education (nominee of the Government), was held on 29.10.2021. In the said meeting, four members recommended the name of the petitioner for placement in higher grade in the pay-scale of Lecturer (Senior Grade) 10000-325-15200 w.e.f. 01.08.2002, and also for the pay-scale of Lecturer (Selection Grade) 15600-39100-8000 w.e.f. 01.08.2007. However, the respondent No.3 did not sign the same.

8. The respondent No.3 though did not put any note for not signing the minutes of the meeting or for not recommending the name of the petitioner, he subsequently tried to justify by filing reply to the present petition to the effect that the petitioner was not eligible because

4

of non-compliance of Clause 15(a) of the Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013, which stipulates a condition that the appointment of the candidate must be on regular basis.

9. Thus, in the above-referred backdrop, the petitioner is seeking Senior Grade as well as Selection Grade by way of the present petition.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is a confirmed teacher and was granted ad-hoc approval initially by the respondent No.4 - University and later on permanent approval by the respondent No.5 - University in the year 2025. It is submitted that the requirement as per the Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013, is that the teacher must be an approved teacher and the appointment should be on regular basis. He submits that there is no express condition that the approval must be permanent approval. It is submitted that the appointment of the petitioner is on regular basis, as it was confirmed by the Management after completing the probation period. He, therefore, submits that the reasons cited by the respondent No.3 to deny the pay- scales of Senior Grade and Selection Grade to the petitioner is contrary to law.

12. On the other hand, learned AGP argues that since the appointment of the petitioner is not on regular basis as required in

5

terms of Clause 15(a) of the Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013, she is not entitled for either Selection Grade or Senior Grade. According to him, since the approval granted to the petitioner is ad-hoc, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be considered on regular basis. He, therefore, submits that the respondent No.3, as stated in the affidavit, rightly denied the benefits of Senior Grade pay-scale or Selection Grade pay-scale to the petitioner. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present petition.

13. In the above-referred backdrop, having considered the rival contentions, we have perused the record. It is evident from the record that, in the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 29.10.2021, the respondent No.3 participated as a nominee of the Government. The minutes of the said meeting show that the Joint Director, namely Mr. Sanjay Thakre did not sign both the minutes dated 29.10.2021. The other four members recommended the name of the petitioner for Senior Grade pay-sale and Selection Grade pay-scale.

14. The above-referred conduct of Mr. Thakre was prima facie found to be not befitting to the post he was holding, for the reason that he could have recorded his reasons, if he found that the petitioner was not eligible for grant of higher pay-scale; however, instead of doing so, he left the meeting without signing the minutes. Therefore, an explanation was called from him and accordingly he submitted the

6

explanation on affidavit on 19.01.2026, which is apparently not satisfactory, for the reason that it is contrary to the earlier affidavit filed by him as a Joint Director on 06.10.2023. Further more, Mr. Sanjay Thakre has tendered apology by affidavit dated 19.01.2026. We will consider the same in the later part of the judgment after considering the petition on merits.

15. As regards the matter at hand, admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 01.08.1996, and she was made permanent after completion of probation period vide letter issued by the respondent No.6 dated 26.05.1999 w.e.f. 01.08.1988. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent No.4 - University granted ad-hoc approval to the petitioner as Lecturer in 'Home Economics'. The petitioner, on the date of the meeting of Selection Committee held, to consider the proposal of the respondent No.6 - College, to grant Senior Grade and Selection Grade to the petitioner, was on the roll of the respondent No.6 and in active service of the said college, which is the requirement as per Clause 5 of the Government Resolution dated 08.03.2019, issued in relation to revision of pay-scales of teachers and Non-agricultural Universities, National Law Universities, Affiliated Colleges, Government Colleges/Institutes, as per the 7^thCentral Pay Commission and UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and

7

Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010.

16. As far as the ground raised by the respondent No.3 that, the petitioner was not found qualified as per the Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013, and more particularly as per Clause 15(a) of the same, is concerned, no doubt, the said clause stipulates that the candidate must be appointed on a 'regular basis' and should be approved teacher. It is not the case of the respondent No.3 that the petitioner's appointment was not made after following due process or she was not confirmed in the service by the respondent - College or there is no ad-hoc approval to the appointment of the petitioner as claimed by the petitioner.

17. The clause, stipulating requirement of having approved teacher, does not expressly prescribe that the approval must be permanent approval only. Thus, the said Government Resolution particularly Clause 15(a) does not expressly provide that the teachers must be having permanent approval.

18. In the circumstances, as the appointment of the petitioner was made after following due process of law and since she has been confirmed in the employment and further the ad-hoc approval was granted to the petitioner, we are of the opinion that her appointment was on regular basis and she was approved teacher on the date when Selection Committee considered her claim.

8

19. Having held so, we do not find any reason for the respondent No.3 to hold the petitioner as not qualified as per Clause 15(a) of the Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013.

20. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner's statement on affidavit that one Ms. P.M. Junghare, who was similarly situated lecturer and whose name was in the list published by the UGC granting exemption from NET examination and had ad-hoc approval, was granted Senior Grade and Selection Grade by the respondent No.3, is not denied by the respondent No.3. Thus, on one hand, the petitioner was denied benefits of pay fixation in Senior Grade and Selection Grade, for the reason that her appointment was approved on ad-hoc basis, and at the same time, similarly situated lecturer has been granted the benefits by the same Authority i.e. the respondent No.3. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the present petition needs to be allowed.

21. As regards the apology tendered by Mr. Sanjay Thakre, the then Joint Director, Higher Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, we accept the same since he has tendered the same unconditionally.

22. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

O R D E R

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

9

(ii) The petitioner shall be granted Senior Grade 10000-325- 15200 w.e.f. 01.08.2002 and Selection Grade 15600-39100-8000 w.e.f.

01.08.2007.

(iii) Said process shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from today.

(iv) All the monetary benefits shall be released in favour of the petitioner within next ten weeks from the date of grant of such pay-scales to the petitioner.

23. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

Vijaykumar

10