STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus SHASHIKANT S. PUJARI AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 490 · Decided: 24-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
SHASHIKANT S. PUJARI AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 24, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
University Grants Commission· Act, 19 56: 
s.26(J)(e) rlw ss. 14 and 8(J)(a)-Part-time Lecturer in Law College 
under control of State Government-,-Later for some time worked as full 
timer-Appointment not approved by University-College asking him to 
refund the differential amount~laim for regularization by teacher-Held, 
D Lecturer not possessing requisite educational qualification and his 
appointment having not been made through Selection Committee of University 
nor the appointment having been duly approved, he was not entitled to 
regularization~tate, while undertaking to bear financial burden of payment 
of salaries of teachers, is entitled to insist that appointments be made in 
accordance with the statute-However, in exercise ofjurisdiction under Article 
E 142, direction given not to make recovery of any amount paid~onstitution 
of India, Article 142. 
Respondent No.I was appointed as a part-time Lecturer, initially on 
Clock Hour Basis with effect from 1.8.1983 in the one-man Department of 
Political Science of respondent no.2-Law College which started 5 year Law 
F Course in the year 1983-84. The Institute was under the control of the 
appellant State Government. Respondent no. 1 was said to have worked from 
1.7.1984 to 19.6.1995. During this period there were several breaks in his 
service ranging from 61 days 2 years and 139 days. He was again selected by 
the Local Selection Committee of the College, and from 20.6.1995 he was 
G working as a part-timer. The respondent claimed for regularization stating 
that as per the condition stipulated at the time of his appointment as full-time 
lecturer for the years 1985 and 1986, he acquired M.Phil Degree within the 
period specified. The Managing Committee of the College found him qualified 
and by its resolution dated 31.10.2000, sent a communication to the 
Management Council, which declined to accept the recommendation of the 
H 
4~ 
-
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SHASHIKANT S. PUJARI 
491 
Managing Committee and held that as respondent no.I did not fulfil the A 
required eligibility for the post he should not be given approval as a teacher. 
Ultimately, the University opined that respondent no.1 was not qualified to be 
full time teacher pursuant whereto respondent no.2 College asked him to 
refund all amounts paid to him since June I999. Respondent no.1 filed a writ 
petition before the High Court, wherein respondent no.2 College made a 
statement that the post of full-time lecturer had fallen vacant from June I999. B 
The High Court, inter alia, relying on the said statement held that respondent 
no.I was entitled to the conferment of status of a full-time lecturer w.e.f. June 
1999. Aggrieved, the State Government filed Civil Appeal No.1386 of2006 
and respondent no.1 filed Civil Appeal No.1387 of2006 contending that he 
was entitled to the benefit offull-time lecturer from I983 and not from June C 
1999. 
It was contended for the appellant-State Government that no approval 
having been given to appointment of respondent no.1after31.10.1985, his 
continuation thereafter was illegal; that there having been several breaks in 
service of respondent no.1 and such breaks having not been condoned, the D 
High Court erred in passing the impugned order; that though the Local 
Selection Committee appointed respondent no.I again w.e.f. 20.6.1995, no 
approval was granted by the University considering it a fresh appointment; 
and that respondent no.I was not qualified according to the educational 
qualifications laid down by the U.G.C. in 199I under Section 26(I)(e) read E 
with Section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act, I956. 
Allowing Civil Appeal No.1386 of2006 filed by the State Government 
and dismissing Civil Appeal No. 1387 of2006 filed by Lecturerthe Court 
HELD: 1.1. Respondent no. I was appointed on 'Clock Hour Basis' F 
through the Local Selection Committee of respondent no.2-College. 
Undisputedly, he was not appointed by a duly constituted University Selection 
Committee. The purported relaxation granted in terms of the G.R. dated 
31.1.1983, in regard to the qualifications of teachers was in relation to those 
who were already in service in permanent position duly selected by the 
University Selection Committee prior to revision of pay scales. It was, G 
therefore, not applicable to the case of respondent no. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.