Kannulal vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

(PER – JITENDRA JAIN, J.) :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these petitions are heard finally.

This batch of petitions filed by the petitioners seeks regularisation and permanency of their services with all consequential service benefits. By consent of the parties, Writ Petition No. 4724 of 2016 is taken as a lead matter.

Petitioners in writ petition No. 4724 of 2016 have instituted the petition for following reliefs :-

This matter reminds us of deep rooted culture in the land of Mother India, where Indian parents from the time of giving birth to a child till their last breath, act as a lifelong guardians - even after the child achieves adulthood, gets married and has children, irrespective of child’s economic and financial condition. Indian parents would always make wholehearted attempt to ensure that their child survives and prospers, though they may have to pay heavy cost by cutting down on their own expenses. Equally, State, regarded as parens patriae, cannot establish an educational institution and leave it to struggle for administrative support necessary for fulfillment of its purpose.

It is in the above context that Chapter 5 paragraph 5.1 of the National Education Policy, 2020 assumes significance, which reads as under :-

Kothari Commission Report on “Education and National Development, 1964-66” in Chapter 1 – paragraph 1.01 observed as under :-

The significance of these principles is also reflected in the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahatma Gandhi Mission vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena^{11.(2017) 4 SCC 449}, touching the issue arising in the present batch of matters for our consideration, which reads as under:-

(emphasis supplied)

Certain important observations of the Madras High Court in the case of S. Ramesh vs. The Bharathidasan University and Others^{22.Writ Petition (MD) No. 7755 of 2014 decided on 12.12.2023} dealing with similar issue in the context of Model College reads as under:-

University Grants Commission (UGC) pursuant to announcement of the Hon’ble Prime Minister tabled a report for setting up 374 Model Colleges in districts across India with low Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER). On 29.06.2011, respondent no. 3 –UGC released grant-in-aid to respondent no. 2 – university for setting up of new Model College at Ghansawangi, District – Jalna in the State of Maharashtra. The grant approved was for Rs. 2.67 crore and the amount released was Rs. 1.33 crore.

The salient features of the above UGC report, on the basis of which the Model Colleges were established, are as under :-

On 14.03.2013, a Government Resolution (GR) was issued by respondent no. 1 – State in relation to setting up of Model Colleges in 7 districts of the State. By this GR, permission was granted for setting up of Model Colleges in 7 districts. In the present petition, we are concerned with the college in Jalna District at Ghansawangi. In the said GR, it is mentioned that the total cost of setting up the college, would be Rs. 8 crore which would be borne by the Central and State Government in the ratio of 1/3^rd and 2/3^rd, respectively. In the said GR, it is further stated that if the cost exceeds Rs. 8 crore, then the concerned university will bear the expenses. The annual expenses were estimated at Rs. 1.50 crore, which consisted of Rs. 1 crore towards salary and Rs. 50 lakhs towards other recurring expenses. The said Rs. 1.50 crore would be borne by the State Government. These figures are picked up from the estimates made by the committee set-up to establish Model Colleges across India. In the said GR, it is further stated that employees of the Model College will be employees of the university and the university will send the proposal to respondent no. 1 – State for approval of the staff of the Model College. It is further stated that the responsibility for the appointment of employees of the Model College will be of the university. In the said GR, it is further stated that a Committee comprising Vice-Chancellor and others would be constituted for running the Model College.

Pursuant to above, respondent no. 2 – university issued advertisements in newspaper from 2011 onwards for recruitment of Assistant Professors posts for 11 months. In the said advertisement, it was specifically mentioned that the pay-scale and service conditions would be applicable as per the rules of the university. Such advertisements were issued every year since 2011. Pursuant to the said advertisements, appointment letters were issued by the university to the petitioners or earlier appointment were extended from time to time. The said appointment letters stated that the petitioners were appointed on temporary basis on a consolidated salary for ongoing academic semester only and that the petitioners would not be entitled to any other allowance. It is further stated that the petitioner will not be considered for any permanency benefits and that the services shall be on purely temporary basis on consolidated salary and would be liable for termination without any notice, if the work is found unsatisfactory. Such appointment letters were issued every year to the petitioners after giving a technical break. The petitioners having spent more than 10-12 years, made a representation to respondent no. 2 – university for regularisation and permanency. However, having failed to receive any positive response from the university, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court seeking the prayers reproduced herein-above.

It is relevant to note order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the Division Bench of their Lordships Hon’ble Shri. Justice Sant and Justice Ghodeswar in Writ Petition No. 4724 of 2016 and connected matters which reads as under :-

Learned senior counsel took us through the documents filed alongwith the petition and submitted that the petitioners are duly qualified and were duly appointed pursuant to the advertisement and in a meeting of the committee consisting of Vice Chancellor, Director of Higher Education, Principal etc. and pleaded that appointment is in accordance with law and not illegal.

He further submitted that the Model College – respondent no. 4 is a part of the university and its employees are employees of the university. He submitted that all employees of the university including the employees of the Model College formed one class but still were not being regularised and the salary paid to them is much lower than those paid to the other employees of the university for doing same work. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submitted that equals are treated unequally, which is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Learned senior counsel further placed reliance on Article 16 of the Constitution of India which provides for equality in matters of public employment. He submitted that the action of the respondents of giving unequal treatment to the employees of the Model College violates Article 16 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that respondent no. 1 – State had directed the university not to make the employees of the Model College permanent. Learned senior counsel submitted that this is akin to an unfair trade practice being adopted by the State and the university.

Learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioners in middle of their career, cannot leave their present job and, therefore, seeks continuation / back-wages and regularisation of their employment. He further pleaded doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation in support of the petition.

Learned senior counsel relied upon following decisions in support of his submissions :-

Mr. Khandare submitted that Writ Petition No. 5131 of 2016 is based on identical facts but it relates to the non-teaching staff and Writ Petition No. 7009 of 2023 relates to Lab Assistant. Except this, the facts are similar to those in the lead matter.

Ms. Talekar appearing for petitioners working at Model College at Hingoli submitted that the petitioners at the time of filing the petition have worked for the said college for period ranging from 3-1/2 to 6 years. She submitted that respondent no. 1 – State undertook to bear the recurring expenses and, therefore, today the State cannot be heard to say that they will not contribute more than what was stated in the GR dated 14.03.2013. She submitted that the posts are deemed to have been sanctioned on account of proposal pending before the State for more than a decade.

She further submitted that process of direct selection has been adopted by the State. She submitted that the jobs of the petitioners are of permanent nature. She submitted that amount specified in 2013 GR cannot be stagnated or frozen but has to be increased on account of inflation over a period of time. She further relied upon the UGC report annexed to the petition, explaining the background and circumstances in which the Model Colleges came to be set up. She submitted that the State Government undertook to meet all the recurring expenses and, therefore, it cannot shy away from its obligation today.

She further relied upon the objective of setting up the Model Colleges for providing education through teachers of national and international standards in terms of teaching and research. Ms. Talekar also relied upon the advertisement for recruitment and submitted that the petitioners were duly appointed in accordance with law. Ms. Talekar also referred to various newspaper photographs to show that the petitioners were working with the Model Colleges till 2019. She submitted that merely because no interim relief was granted in her petition, that would not come in the way of this Court allowing the petition for back-wages and regularisation of services. Ms. Talekar, therefore, adopting the arguments of learned senior counsel Mr. Khandare and making further submissions recorded above, prayed for the petitions to be allowed.

Learned counsel Ms. Talekar relied upon following decisions in support of her submissions :

Mr. S. B. Ghatol Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner adopts the submissions made by Mr. Khandare, learned senior counsel and Ms. Talekar in other matters. He further submits that by advertisement dated 07.05.2012, for recruitment of an Assistant Professor to teach Applied Biotechnology subject, the petitioner was appointed in the open category on temporary basis for 5 years. The petitioner had all the qualifications to be appointed for the said post. The Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University had issued an appointment letter to the petitioner. The said appointment was renewed every year by issuing fresh appointment letter by the university. Subsequent appointment letters specifically state that it is an extension of earlier appointment. Learned counsel, referring to the rejoinder dated 19.10.2020 relied upon the letter issued by the university, wherein the petitioner has been appointed as a Chairman / paper setter for the paper - Basics of Bio Science. Learned counsel submits that even today, he is working without pay. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prayed for the reliefs sought in the petition, to be allowed by regularising the services of the petitioner at the pay-scale prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor and granting all consequential benefits arising therefrom.

The learned Government Pleader opposing the petitions made his submissions on the basis of documents annexed to the Writ Petition No. 7304 of 2020. The learned Government Pleader, in his written notes of arguments gave background under what circumstances, the Model Colleges were set up in educationally backward districts of the country. He submitted that the purpose of setting up the Model Colleges was to increase access to higher education in the educationally backward districts and to train the students for job-oriented courses.

He submitted that the Model Colleges were designed to become autonomous colleges after a period of 5 years by standing on their own feet and, therefore, the assistance was to be provided for the period of initial 5 years only by the State. However, these colleges could not stand on their own feet after completion of 5 years but the State continued to give financial assistance of Rs. 1.50 crore, as provided in 2013 GR even after 5 years. The learned Government Pleader referred to provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (1994 Act) and Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (2016 Act) and more particularly, the provisions relating to definition of ‘teacher’ and the appointments of teaching and non-teaching staff. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners are not “teachers” as defined under the said Acts and are also not appointed in accordance with the provisions of the said Acts and, therefore, they cannot claim permanency and regularisation.

The learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners by accepting the appointment letters have accepted that they are employed only for a temporary period without any benefits of regularisation or permanency. He submitted that after having agreed to the said appointment, the petitioners cannot turn around today and seek regularisation and demand pay-scale as per the UGC pay-scale. Learned Government Pleader submitted that in the advertisement itself, it was stated that the recruitment is for a temporary period and at a consolidated salary.

The learned Government Pleader produced a letter dated 03.09.2009 issued by the UGC to the Higher Education Secretaries of all the States. Relying upon paragraphs 4 and 7 and format of undertaking annexed thereto, he submitted that the undertaking by the State Government to grant financial assistance on account of recurring expenses was only to the extent of Rs. 1.50 crore. He submitted that if the regularisation is granted and the pay-scale applicable to the employees of the UGC is applied, then there would be a huge financial burden on the State Government, contrary to the undertaking given as per the said letter of 03.09.2009. The learned Government Pleader further handed over charts of various colleges in those regions and submitted that now there are enough colleges in these districts and that there is no necessity to continue these colleges since the students are dwindling in Model Colleges.

The learned Government Pleader submitted that this Court cannot create a post nor this Court can issue a direction to absorb the teachers or continue them in service or pay them salaries of regular employees as those are purely executive functions and the Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers of the executive or legislature. He submitted that in the absence of any sanctioned post, the prayer sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted.

The learned Government Pleader, referring to the GR dated 14.03.2013 and more particularly, paragraph 3 of the said resolution submitted that the petitioners were not appointed pursuant to any advertisement and/or by the duly constituted Committee as per Section 102 of the 2016 Act or Sections 76 and 77 of the 1994 Act. He submitted that the appointment letter itself states that the appointment is temporary and benefit of permanency will not be accorded to the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader relied upon the decisions in the case of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal and others vs. Leena Jain and others^{2626.(2006) 11 SCC 350}, Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others^{2727.2026 LiveLaw (SC) 390} and submitted that the pay-scale cannot be given retrospective effect.

The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned senior counsel Mr. Khandare in the case of Dharam Singh (supra), Jaggo (supra) and Bhola Nath (supra) did not consider the earlier decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that the Court cannot direct the creation of posts and regularisation of services. He, therefore, submitted that the decision relied upon by the learned senior counsel cannot be made applicable to the present case.

The learned Government Pleader referring to various paragraphs of UGC Scheme and the GR of 14.03.2013 submitted that the objective for setting up these colleges was to make these colleges not only academically autonomous but also financially independent within period of five years. He also drew support for this submission by relying upon Section 2(5) of 1994 Act which defines “Autonomy”. He submitted that the UGC Scheme provides for budgeted figure and read with letter dated 03.09.2009 and more particularly the undertaking given by the State. The undertaking itself provides for same being in consonance with UGC Scheme. He submitted that the GR of 14.03.2013 itself provides that the State would contribute maximum of Rs. 1 crore towards salary and Rs. 0.50 crore towards other recurring expenses. The learned counsel further submitted that Section 8(1) of the 1994 Act has to be read alongwith Section 5(9) and, therefore, the posts cannot be created without prior approval of the State, which is statutory mandate. He submitted that the purpose of setting up Model College was student centric and not employee centric. He submitted that steps are being taken by the State to introduce job orientated courses to make such colleges viable in next 5 years.

The learned Government Pleader relied upon following decisions in support of his submissions and pleaded for dismissal of the petitions :-

Mr. Tope, learned counsel for the university, submitted that the petitioners were not selected in accordance with Section 105 of the Act, 2016 read with Section 2(22) thereof. He submitted that the appointments are only temporary, on a clock-hour basis and for a limited period, and therefore, regularisation cannot be permitted. He submitted that the Model College is maintained and managed by the university. He therefore submitted, adopting the arguments of the learned Government Pleader, that the prayers for regularisation and payment of salary as per the pay-scale cannot be granted.

Ms. Talekar, in the rejoinder, at the outset, submitted that what is being argued by the State is contrary to their pleadings. She submitted that the Model Colleges were established based on GER and that there was no time limit prescribed of 5 years for grant of financial assistance. She further referred to the UGC Committee report, wherein it was stated that the Model Colleges would be ‘constituent colleges’ of the Universities. The autonomy was with respect to academic requirements and not with regard to financial requirements. It is her submission that it was never the intention of the respondents that these colleges would be financially autonomous.

Ms. Talekar, learned counsel, further relied upon various paragraphs of the UGC report, wherein it is stated that the Model Colleges should not be treated as another set of departments strictly ruled by the finance department of the Universities. She further stated that as per paragraph 3.3.2.5. of the report, appointments of the petitioners had been made by the appointment committee referred therein and this is admitted in the affidavit of the university. Referring to Paragraphs 3.4.3.1, 3.4.3.7, 4.1.2 and 4.1.4.1 of the report, she submitted that 100% of the recurring expenses have to be borne by the State Government. She submitted that the amount of Rs. 1.5 crore was based on the factors prevailing at the time of establishment of these colleges and same cannot be treated as fixed amount for all times to come.

Ms. Talekar further submitted that the State has given an undertaking to UGC that it would bear the entire recurring expenses and, therefore, the stand taken today by the State that their liability is restricted to only Rs. 1.50 crore would be a fraud played by the State. Ms. Talekar referred to various paragraphs of GR dated 14.03.2013 and submitted that the question of creation of posts does not arise. The post is deemed to have been created and the university has infact, sent the proposal on which the State Government has not taken any decision. She further submitted that the appointments had been made in accordance with the said GR. Ms. Talekar brought to our attention the order dated 30.09.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 5111 of 2019, wherein this Court had given certain directions with regard to sanctioning of teaching posts and the report to be placed before the Bench.

She further submitted that the judgments cited by the learned Government Pleader relates to labour dispute and it is in that connection that the Court had observed that it cannot sanction the posts. In the instant case, the scheme itself provides for the sanctioning of the posts upon a proposal being made by the university coupled with the undertaking given by the State to bear the salary and future expenses in its entirety. She submitted that in none of the affidavits filed in these matters, the issue of no post having been sanctioned has been raised. She submitted that the issues raised in these matters are different from the issues which were raised in the decisions relied upon by the learned Government Pleader and, therefore, those decisions cannot be made applicable. She, therefore, concluded by submitting that the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader were required to be rejected.

The learned counsel appearing for petitioners Ms. Talekar, referred to orders dated 12.06.2019 and 24.07.2019 and submitted that the petitioners, after challenging the recruitment process post filling of the petition are still teaching in respondent no. 4 – institution. She, therefore, submitted that the submission made by the university on termination does not survive. She further submitted that the petitioners have filed Contempt Petition No. 26 of 2022 for not following the orders of this Court by university.

In rejoinder, Mr. Khandare, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, relied upon Section 5(9) and (11) of the Act, 1994 and submitted that the power to create posts vests with the university, subject to the prior approval of the State Government. He further relied upon Sections 76 and 77 of the said Act and submitted that these provisions apply to temporary vacancies and not to appointments made for a temporary period, which are extended from time to time. He submitted that temporary vacancies are those which arise on account of regular employees being unavailable for a certain period, for instance, on account of maternity leave, etc. He further submitted that this position is clarified by Sections 102 and 103 of the 2016 Act, which are pari materia with Sections 76 and 77 of the 1994 Act.

Learned senior counsel further submitted that the Model College is a joint project of the university, the State Government and the Central Government. He referred to the communication dated 02.08.2014, whereby the State Government had directed the university not to fill up the posts on a permanent basis till the proposal submitted to the State Government was cleared. He submitted that the issue before this Court is not regarding creation of posts by this Court and, therefore, the said question does not arise in the present matter. He further referred to the communication dated 28.11.2018, whereby the university had forwarded the proposal to the State Government for approval of the posts and expressed its financial strain on account of no decision being taken by the State in this regard. He, therefore, submitted that the question of seeking any direction from this Court for creation of posts does not arise. He submitted that the State Government cannot keep the proposal pending and, at the same time, contend that in absence of sanctioned posts, the relief sought by the Petitioners cannot be granted.

Learned senior counsel further submitted that the requisite quorum of the Selection Committee was duly present at the time of appointment of the Petitioners. In any event, he submitted that the appointments cannot be termed illegal, but at the highest, irregular, and such irregularity can always be cured. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Thapliyal and Another vs. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University and Another^{4040.(2021) 10 SCC 116} and submitted that, considering the precarious position of the petitioners and the unequal bargaining power between the State and the petitioners, the petitioners had no option but to accept and sign the appointment letters. He, therefore, submitted that, in the facts of the present case, acceptance of the terms and conditions of the appointment letters cannot be held against the petitioners so as to deny their legitimate claim for regularisation and payment of salary as per the UGC pay scale. The learned senior counsel also relied upon paragraphs 88 and 89 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & Another vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Another^{4141.(1986) 3 SCC 156}. He submitted that for making the college autonomous, the first step is to remunerate teacher and other staff according to the pay-scale since it is they who would make the college best place for research and development of the country.

The learned counsel Mr. Malte, submitted that the petitioners were relieved from their duties vide letter dated 24.04.2019 and, therefore, seeking regularisation of services does not arise. He submitted that this termination has not been challenged before this Court or any other Forum.

We have heard all the counsel for the petitioners and respondents and have perused the pages of the documents brought to our attention by all the parties.

The issue which is raised for our consideration can be adjudicated and appreciated by referring to the salient features for establishing Model Colleges in India as enshrined in the UGC report.

The aforesaid report was prepared by an Expert Committee consisting of learned academicians from across the country, pursuant to the announcement of the then Hon'ble Prime Minister of India that the Central Government would help the States to set up Model Colleges to provide high-quality higher education through various programs of study, with emphasis on courses which are in demand by the society in general and the economy in particular to sustain economic growth of 9% per annum.

Before we analyse the above scheme in the context of the present batch of petitions, it is important to note certain paragraphs from the affidavits-in-reply filed by the respondent-State, UGC and the university in various petitions.

The respondent-university in Writ Petition No. 7304 of 2020, has stated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit of Dr. Vitthal More that, in order to run the Model College, the university had submitted a proposal to the respondent-State for sanctioning the required posts. However, respondent-State has not sanctioned the required posts till date. Therefore, the university appointed candidates to the required posts on a temporary basis. In paragraph 9, the university has further reiterated that the posts of Model College, Hingoli, have not been regularised till date. In paragraph 13 of the said affidavit, it has been further stated that, though the proposal was received by the Finance Department from the Director of the Higher Education of Maharashtra, the State has not yet approved the same. In the said affidavit, the university admits that the appointments were made by the university under Section 77 of the 1994 Act and Section 103 of the 2016 Act albeit on a temporary basis. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 7304 of 2020, in their rejoinder, have stated that the college/university had sent proposals to the respondent State for sanctioning the required posts in 2011 and 2014. However, till date, the State Government has neither approved nor rejected the said proposals.

In Writ Petition No. 7304 of 2020, Dr. Sarjerao Shinde on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 4 filed an affidavit-in-reply, in which in paragraph 5, it is stated that, to run the Model College, the university appointed the staff of the college on temporary basis as per Section 77 of 1994 Act and Section 103 of 2016 Act.

In Writ Petition No. 5111 of 2019, Dr. Nalini Tembekar, Joint Director of Higher Education, accepts in paragraph 16 that the appointments were made in accordance with the 1994 and 2016 Acts, albeit on a temporary basis. Dr. Nalini Tembekar, in a further affidavit, has admitted in paragraph 6 that proposals for sanctioning the required posts for Model College, Hingoli, were forwarded to the respondent State in 2011 and 2014. However, the respondent State has not taken any decision on the said proposals till date. Therefore, the university appointed candidates to the required posts on a temporary basis by publishing advertisements every year. In paragraph 15, it is further stated that the proposal received from the Director of the State of Maharashtra has been submitted to the Finance Department. However, no approval has been granted till date.

Dr. Supriya Dahiya, Education Officer, Delhi, has filed an affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent no. 3 in Writ Petition No. 5111 of 2019. In paragraph 3, she states that the petitioners were appointed within the ratio prescribed in the project report and, therefore, to the very posts which were required to be sanctioned by the State Government as per the GR of 2013. She further states in the said affidavit that the inconsistent policy of ad-hoc appointments and discriminatory pay scales and benefits between contractual and regular employees violate the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. She further states that the workload assigned to the petitioners is exactly the same as that of regular permanent employees, but they are being paid meagre salaries. She further states that, by not appointing teaching staff on a regular basis, the university has played a fraud on the UGC. Dr. Supriya Dahiya, Education Officer, in Writ Petition No. 5111 of 2019, has annexed, along with her affidavit-in-reply, the UGC Regulations concerning appointments on a contractual basis.

The aforesaid Regulations state that appointments on a contractual basis should be made only when absolutely necessary and when the student-teacher ratio does not satisfy the prescribed norms. In any case, the number of such appointments should not exceed 10% of the total number of faculty positions in a college. The emoluments paid to such contractual teachers should not be less than the salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. Such appointments should not initially be made for more than one academic session, and the performance of such teachers should be reviewed before reappointing them on a contractual basis for another session.

In Writ Petition No. 5111 of 2019, Professor Ramjan Mulani has filed an affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 4 and in paragraph 8, he has stated that the appointments were made by the Management Council to fill posts on consolidated pay per month since the sanction for the posts were not received for Model College.

Mr. Prabhakar Harkal on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 4 has filed an additional affidavit-in-reply and in paragraph 11 has stated that since the regular posts were not sanctioned by the Government, every year on the basis of the strength of the students, an advertisement was published to fill the posts up on a temporary basis in the college from university funds.

In Writ Petition No. 5111 of 2019, Mr. Kirankumar Bondar has filed additional affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent no.1-State and in paragraph 6 has stated that the university can create posts of teaching and non-teaching staff within the consolidated grants provided by the Government amounting to Rs. 1.5 crore per annum. A further affidavit of Mr. B. Venugopal Reddy on behalf of respondent no.1 has been filed in Writ Petition No. 5111 of 2019.

In Writ Petition No. 4724 of 2016, Dr. Sadhna Pandey on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 4 has filed an affidavit. In paragraph 7, she has stated that the Director of Higher Education directed the university to make temporary appointments until teaching and non-teaching posts are sanctioned by the Government. She further expressly states that there was a direction from the State Government not to make appointments on a regular basis.

Dr. Pankaja Waghmare, in her affidavit-in-reply dated 27.07.2026 on behalf of respondent no.1 in Writ Petition No. 4724 of 2016 has stated that in Model College, Ghansawangi 577 students are admitted for which 28 teaching posts are required as per the UGC report stating the student teacher ratio 20:1 is to be maintained. Similarly, in the same affidavit- in-reply Model College, Hingoli, 629 students are admitted and teaching posts as per the said ratio would work out to 31. The learned senior counsel Mr. Khandare for the petitioners, submitted that the number of teachers of are less than the teaching posts stated in the aforesaid affidavit-in-reply insofar as Model College, Ghansawangi is concerned.

The undertaking given by the State in 2011 and enclosed in Writ Petition No. 4724 of 2016 is reproduced :-

With the above salient features of the report on the basis of which the Model Colleges were established, and the admissions made by the respondents referred to herein-above, we now propose to adjudicate the issues raised for our consideration, which are as under:

The first issue which requires adjudication by this Court is whether the submission made by the State that the appointments are not in accordance with provisions of Sections 76 and 77 of the 1994 Act and Sections 102 and 103 of the 2016 Act is correct or not.

The appointments of the petitioners were made by way of advertisement. There is no dispute that the advertisement mentioned that the vacancy is for temporary period of 11 months. It is also important to note that in the advertisement issued by Ghansawangi College it is mentioned that the pay scale and service conditions would be as per rules of the university and the Government of Maharashtra. In the appointment order issued by the university and annexed to Writ Petition No. 7304 of 2020, it is expressly stated that the appointment is based on the recommendation of the selection committee pursuant to an advertisement and based on the performance at the interview. There is no dispute that the petitioners have requisite academic qualifications for the posts to which they are appointed. The advertisement notice expressly provides for reservations by bifurcating the posts between reserved and unreserved candidates. The advertisement expressly states the number of posts. It is only after this procedure was followed that the petitioners came to be appointed as teachers.

The petitioners’ employment was extended every year by giving extension after a short technical break. This demonstrates that there is a requirement of these petitioners to teach in the Model College. The university had sent the proposal for sanction of the post for approval to the State Government, which till today has not been acted upon by the State. The State Government admits that these proposals were received but because no action was taken, it had directed the university to make appointment on temporary basis. At no stage, the State Government has stated that the proposals will not be considered favourably. In these circumstances, the petitioners would be justified in relying upon the conduct of the respondents to invoke the principles of promissory estoppel and in any case, even if the said principle is not applicable, the petitioners would be justified in seeking regularisation and payment as per pay scale based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The continuous renewal over such a long period of time by giving a technical break was nothing but indirectly doing what is otherwise prohibited directly. This certainly cannot be expected from a welfare State and more particularly from one of the most developed State of the country.

The State and Universities in its various affidavits in reply various petitions as analysed hereinabove have accepted that the appointments of the petitioners are made under Sections 77 and 103 of the 1994 and 2016 Act respectively, but the same were on a temporary basis. In our view, Sections 76 and 77 of the 1994 Act does not make a distinction between appointment of teachers on a permanent or temporary basis.

As regards the contention that Section 77 of the 1994 Act provides for appointment to a temporary vacancy for a period of one year is concerned, in our view, same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The phrase “temporary vacancy” used in Section 77 takes its colour from the word “on” preceding the said phrase. It means that some person is occupying a particular post and is not available for temporary period and the appointments are made to fill up temporary vacancy in his/her place under Section 77 of the 1994 Act.

Therefore, the submission that these appointments are to fill temporary vacancies is not justified. Nothing has been shown to us to establish that prior to these appointments, these posts were occupied by some other persons and that on account of such persons not being available for a temporary period, the vacancies arose which were created subsequently filled by the appointment of the petitioners. The term “vacancy” would not include appointments on a temporary basis.

Section 103 of the 2016 Act gives a clue for interpretation of the phrase “temporary vacancy”. Section 103(1) provides that temporary vacancy arises because of resignation, leave or any reason whatsoever. One more example could be that of a teacher going on a maternity leave. The phrase “any reason whatsoever” takes its colour from preceding words by applying principle of ejusdem generis and, therefore, cannot mean all the reasons whatsoever. It is in only those circumstances that the regular teachers are not available and a vacancy arises, which is filled by appointing a person to such post for a temporary period that the phrase temporary vacancy is to be understood. Therefore, in our view, on a reading of Sections 76 and 77 of 1994 Act and Sections 102 and 103 of 2016 Act, the submission made by the State that these appointments are not made under these provisions cannot be accepted.

Admittedly, on a reading of the appointment letter and on the basis of the admissions made by the respondents in affidavits in reply the work performed by the petitioners is same as that of a regular teacher. In our view, the petitioners would fall within the definition of a “university teacher” as defined in Sections 2(41) read with 2(34) of the 1994 Act. Similar definition exists in 2016 Act in section 2(61) and section 2(68). It is not the case of the respondents that these petitioners are appointed on part-time basis. Furthermore, on a reading of the appointment letter the petitioners are working on a full-time basis for the college. Therefore, these petitioners would fall within the meaning of “teacher” and “university teacher” as defined in the 1994 and 2016 Acts.

The submission made that the appointments were not made by a committee as contemplated in Sections 77 or 102 and 103 of the 1994 and 2016 Acts respectively is concerned same also cannot be accepted. Assuming that there is any defect in the constitution of the committee, Section 111 of the 1994 Act and Section 143 of the 2016 Act provides that any act and proceedings of such committees shall not be treated as invalid on the ground that there is a defect in the constitution of the committee. These provisions are based on the principle akin to doctrine of indoor management, which is generally evolved and used in corporate law. Therefore, even assuming that there is some defect in the constitution of the committee, the appointments made by these committees cannot be treated as invalid moreso when the respondents were aware of these appointments for such a long period and had not raised any objection at any point of time prior to filing of these petitions.

In Writ Petition No. 4724 of 2016, the constitution of the committee through which the petitioners have been appointed is specified. The committee consisted of Vice-chancellor, Vice-chancellor's nominee, subject expert, director of higher education, and Principal of the college. These members also appear in the selection Committee referred to in Sections 76 and 77 of the 1994 Act and Sections 102 and 103 of the 2016 Act, respectively. Since, in our view the members of the committee that appointed the petitioners are also specified in these Sections, it cannot be said that the appointments are not made by the committee in accordance with these provisions. It is also important to note that the candidates, when they appear before the selection committee, would not be in a position to verify whether the persons forming the committee are appointed in accordance with the 1994 and 2016 Acts and they would be justified in presuming that the committee is duly constituted in accordance with Act. Therefore, the principles akin to doctrine of indoor management would apply and the candidates cannot be made to suffer if there is any defect in the constitution of the committee to which the respondents have never objected.

It is also important to note that the appointments are made from 2012 onwards and that if the State felt that these appointments are not made by the committee duly constituted under the respective provisions, then it is surprising why they did not take any action against the university for appointing these petitioners contrary to the provisions of the university Act. Therefore, at this stage, the State cannot argue for all the aforesaid reasons that the appointments are not made by the committee as required under the 1994 and 2016 Acts.

In Writ Petition No. 4724 of 2016, an affidavit in reply on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and 4 is filed, wherein it is stated that by letter dated 2nd August 2014, the State Government directed the university not to approve the appointments, but to make appointments on a temporary basis since the proposal sent by the university to the Government for prior approval were pending. In our view, this letter goes on to show that the respondent-State has admitted that the appointments are in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Till today, these proposals have not been decided.

We fail to understand that the proposals sent in 2011, 2014, etc., are still not decided up to 2026. The inaction on the part of the State in not taking any decision on the proposal sent over more than a decade ago is nothing but administrative inertia. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of IFGL Refractories Limited vs. Orissa State Financial Corporation and Others^{4242.(2026) SCC OnLine 28} has expressed their displeasure on bureaucratic lethargy. It is settled position of law that a person cannot take the benefit of his own wrong, delay or inaction. The State by sitting over such proposals for such a long period, cannot now turn around and argue that these appointments are not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Nothing prevented the State from rejecting these proposals on any ground immediately on receipt of such proposals. The fact that the State directed the university not to appoint new people since the proposals are pending with them goes on to show that, on one hand the State did not want to decide the proposals but wanted to continue with the appointments on temporary basis and then, on the other hand argue that since these appointments are on temporary basis same cannot be treated as appointments under the provisions of the Act. In our view, such contradictory conduct of the State is highly deplorable and not acceptable to deny legitimate dues of the petitioners.

We have already noted various admissions made by the respondent State and other respondents in their affidavits wherein there is an admission that the appointments are in accordance with the provisions of the Act, albeit on a temporary basis and further the proposals sent have been pending since long. The above reasoning given by us with respect to appointment of teachers also applies with equal force with respect to other petitioners who are not teachers.

At this stage, it is also important to analyse certain provisions of the 1994 Act. Section 2(10) defines “college” to mean a college conducted by the university or affiliated to the university and situated in the university area. Section 2(11) defines “conducted college” to mean a college maintained and managed by the university. Model Colleges are treated as units of the university and therefore would fall within the definition of college as per Sections 2(10) and 2(11) of the 1994 Act.

Section 2(20) defines “management” to mean the trustees or the governing body. The proviso provides that in relation to any college or institution established or maintained by the Central Government or the State Government, the Central Government or the State Government would be treated as “management”. In the instant case, the Model College is set up by the Central and the State Government, and therefore, the State Government would be treated as management for the purposes of this Act.

Section 5 provides for powers and duties of university. Sub-section (9) provides that it is the duty of the university to create post of directors, principals, professors, readers, lecturers and other teaching or non-vocation academic post required by the university with the prior approval of the State Government. Section 5(5) provides that it is the duty of the university to establish, maintain and manage departments and institutions of research of specialised studies or of academic services unit. Section 5(6) provides that it is the duty of the university to establish, maintain and manage colleges, institutions, hostels, health centers, auditoria and gymnasiums. In our view, the responsibility of maintaining the college under consideration lies with the State as per the definition of the “management” discussed above, and also the university as per their duties provided under section 5(6) of the 1994 Act.

Section 8 of the 1994 Act provides for control of State Government and Universities. It provides that without approval of the State Government, the university shall not create new posts of teachers, officers or other employees. In our view, this provision would not be applicable because as per the UGC Scheme under which the Model Colleges have been established, the State Government has undertaken to consider the proposals sent by the university for the approval of the posts. Secondly, Section 8 would apply not for the post to be created for the first time, but for the new post to be created after the creation of the initial post. In the instant case, since the Model College was set up, we have not been shown any document indicating the post for which the petitioners are appointed were created prior to their appointment.

The language of Section 8(1)(a) of the 1994 Act provides that, without the prior approval of the State Government, the university shall not create new posts of teachers, officers or other employees. The phrase “new posts” can be explained by giving an example. For example, there is a post of a teacher teaching Mathematics. The university now wants to create a new post for a teacher teaching Artificial Intelligence (AI). It is for the AI post that the provisions of Section 8(1)(a) would be applicable. This is under Section 8(1)(a), when contrasted with Section 5(9), which provides for the powers and duties of the university to create posts with the prior approval of the State Government. In our view, Section 5(9) would apply to a case where posts are created at the time of setting up a college. The phrase “new” is absent in Section 5(9). We have already taken the view that, even if the approval is pending for prolonged period, there is deemed approval, and the respondents have admitted that they are ready to sanction the post. Therefore, the appropriate provision in the present case would be Section 5(9) and not Section 8(1)(a) of the 1994 Act.

Section 8(2) provides that the university shall be competent to incur expenditure from the funds received from various sources specified therein. Section 102 provides that the university shall establish salary funds for all posts approved by the State Government and for all other posts. In our view, on a reading of section 102, read with section 8(2), it is also the duty of the university to pay salaries as per the pay scale applicable to the respective post and the State is liable to make the funds available to the university for this purpose as per the undertaking provided to that effect by the State.

The submission made by the State that the petitioners have agreed by signing appointment letters that their appointments are on a temporary basis and they will not claim any permanency is required to be rejected in the facts of the present case. In the instant case, Model Colleges were established by the Centre and the State and the responsibility of maintaining the colleges and bearing the recurring expenses was undertaken by the State. It is at the instance and directive of the State that the Universities were compelled to appoint teachers on temporary basis since the State was not approving the proposal sent by the university for approval of the posts. The State wanted university to run the college and the colleges cannot run without teachers and non-teachers and teachers and non-teachers cannot be appointed, if the posts are not approved though created by the university on account of inaction of the State. The fact that these appointments had to be renewed or extended every year clearly demonstrates and it leads to a legitimate expectation on the part of the teachers and the staff that the moment the State will take a decision on the posts their appointments will be regularised as per the pay scale applicable to the university. In our view, the State based on the above facts narrated above cannot now contend that since the appointments were on temporary basis and the petitioners had given up their claim for permanency, the petition is required to be dismissed. In this connection, paragraphs 42 and 43 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Thapliyal and Another (supra) is relevant and same is reproduced hereunder :-

The claim of the petitioners is not based on the GR dated 22.05.2026 by which the pay-scale has been increased. It is relevant to note that this GR came to be issued after this Court passed various orders expressing dissatisfaction on the conduct of the Government. The contention of the respondent-State is that this GR is prospective in nature and, therefore, based on the same GR, relied cannot be granted. In our view, assuming the GR is prospective in nature and the claim of the petitioners is not based on this GR, but this GR does recongnise that the State accepts teachers were underpaid as per this GR and it is this grievance that is raised and is to be addressed. We have already observed that the action of the respondents in not paying the salary as per the GR is not justified.

The contention that by this GR, petitioners are given extra mark for future employment would be doing too little too late. On the contrary, this GR accepts the experience of the petitioners and also requirements of the number of teachers.

The contention of learned Government Pleader that UGC Scheme provides for projected expenditure of Rs. 1.50 crore per annum in the initial paragraph and thereafter provides that State Government would commit 100 % of the annual recurring expenses should be read to mean 100 % of Rs. 1.50 crore and in any case, in the earlier paragraph should prevail cannot be accepted. The earlier paragraph of UGC Scheme only estimates the expenditure on projections and based on this projection, the committee states in subsequent paragraphs that 100% of annual recurring expenses will be borne by the State Government. In our view, if read harmoniously, it would mean that the committee estimated annual recurring expenses of Rs. 1.50 crore on projected basis and the entire Rs. 1.50 crore will be borne by the State Government, since the projection of only Rs. 1.50 crore. The intention of these two paragraph was to mean that whatever is the expenses required for salary and recurring expenses will be borne entirely by the State Government on actual basis in future. If the intention was that the obligation of the State Government was restricted Rs. 1.50 crore then the scheme would also have provided who the excess should bear. Therefore, in the absence of the same, the only way to construe the scheme is to mean that whatever the actual salary and recurring expenditure when the college actually starts operating, same would be borne entirely by the State Government. The UGC Scheme at page 3 expressly provides for meeting the entire recurring expenses for maintaining these colleges by the State Government.

Now we turn to the Constitution of India to ascertain whether the actions / inactions of the State are violative of any of the Articles of the Constitution.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides for equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Equality and justice are synonymous; to be just is to be equal, to be unjust is to be unequal. In our view, the petitioners who are teaching in Model Colleges cannot be treated differently from the teachers teaching in other colleges affiliated to the university for the purpose of the payment of salary and regularisation. The nature and quantum of work performed by the petitioners in both types of colleges is same and same is admitted by respondents. The qualification required to teach in both the colleges are also same. We do not see any difference between Model Colleges and other colleges that would justify treating petitioners as different classes, so as to deny the protection of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also seen that Model Colleges are constituent colleges and thus integral part of the university. Therefore, the treatment meted out to the petitioners by the State by neither regularising their service and nor paying the salary in accordance with the UGC guidelines and pay-scale and the contrary to the undertaking given by the State is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Article 16 of the Constitution provides that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. It means equal opportunity in matters of public employment. The petitioners who are teachers and non-existing appointed under the university Act are “public servants” as per Section 25 of the 2016 Act. In our view, the opportunities accorded to the petitioners are not equal to the opportunities which are provided to other teachers teaching in other colleges of the same university on account of discrimination meted out to them and, therefore, there is a violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

Article 38 of the Constitution deals with the directive principles of State Policy. It provides that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political shall inform all aspects of the national life. In our view, the university and the Model College would fall within the phrase “institutions of the national life”. By not regularising the services of the petitioners who are working for more than a decade with the university and the State sitting over the proposals for regularising their service for more than a decade would clearly violate the letter and spirit of Article 38. The non-payment of salaries in accordance with the pay scale of the UGC would not secure a social order in which the economic aspect can be said to be satisfied. The State by giving unequal treatment has failed to secure a social order that promotes the welfare of the petitioners and the students and thereby its the action/inaction is violative of Article 38 of the Constitution of India.

Similarly, by paying different salaries and not regularising the services of the petitioners there is a violation of Article 39 of the Constitution of India. Article 39 provides for equal pay for equal work for both men and women. In the instant case, the teachers teaching in the Model College and those teachers teaching in other colleges have been paid differently for the same work. Article 39 does not mean that it only compares men and women with respect to pay but it also includes the payment between two men doing same work in different colleges. Similarly it would also include payment made to two women teachers teaching in Model College and other college.

Article 47 of the Constitution of India obligates the State to raise the level of standard of living of its people. In our view, by paying only a mere consolidated salary for such a long period and not regularising the services of the petitioners, the State has failed to carry out its duties enshrined in Article 47 by its own acts which are mentioned hereinabove whereby the proposal for approval has not been decided for a decade and a direction is issued to appoint the teachers on temporary basis to avoid petitioners being made permanent etc. In our view, such treatment accorded to the petitioners would violate letter and spirit of Article 47 of the Constitution of India.

It is important to note that the petitioners not being regularised by the State are not being paid the salaries as per the pay scales would result into depriving such persons of their property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India without authority of law. The phrase “property” used in Article 300A would also include entitlements of the petitioners who have been working for decades on temporary basis and the State sitting over the proposals of approval for decades without taking any decision. By this process the petitioners are deprived of the salaries which is due to them as per the pay-scale and which the other teachers teaching in other colleges are receiving. Giving a wider meaning to the phrase “property” in the facts of the present case, the non-payment of salary and non-regularisation of the service conditions are clearly violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

In our view, with passage of time, threshold of economic capacity and development of Indian State and more particularly, the State of Maharashtra has undergone radical change in positive direction.

The next submission made by the learned counsel for the State that their liability is capped at Rs. 1 crore as per the GR dated 14.03.2013 and, therefore, by allowing the relief, the State cannot be made liable to pay more than Rs. 1 crore. In our view, this submission also cannot be accepted. The amount of Rs. 1 crore was estimated for across all the districts across the country by the UGC committee in 2011 when the report was prepared. It is on the basis of calculation done at that point of time that an estimate was made. Nowhere in the UGC report, it is stated that Rs. 1 crore would be the limit for all times to come. Admittedly, the number of staff required to run this college based on the number of students was not available at the time of preparation of report of GR and, therefore, an estimate was made by the UGC Committee prior to the setting up of this college which State adopted. In any case, State cannot say that it would not pay salary as per pay-scale prescribed by UGC. Financial constraint is no ground for not paying salary as per the rules and regulations. Law does not permit payment of lesser salary than applicable to any post. The undertaking which is annexed to Writ Petition No. 4724 of 2016 categorically states that the State Government undertakes to bear two-third of the non-recurring expenditure plus Rs. 1 crore as an excess amount and the entire recurring expenditure including salary expenses as well as future appreciation in capital expenditure with reference to the UGC scheme for providing financial assistance to new Model College. In our view, this undertaking is akin to a sovereign guarantee given by the State that in future entire recurring expenditure to run the Model College including salary expense would be borne by the State Government. Therefore, the contention that the liability is restricted to only Rs. 1 crore as per the 2013 GR also cannot be accepted.

The State has constitutional and sovereign obligation to take measures for the progressive realisation of economic and social rights. This gives birth to the doctrine of non-retrogression. As per this doctrine, there must not by any regression of rights. In a progressive and an ever improving society, there is no place for retreat. The society has to march ahead. This doctrine sets forth that the State should not take steps that would lead to retrogression on the enjoyment of constitutional rights or otherwise.

Even in the UGC report, it is specifically mentioned in paragraph 4.1.4.1 that recurring expenses will be borne 100 percent by the State government. The submission made that these colleges were set up with the plan that within five years they would become autonomous and therefore, the liability cannot be fastened upon the State beyond Rs. 1 crore on account of salaries of the teachers and the staff also cannot be accepted in the light of the undertaking given by the State. The 2013 GR and 2011 undertaking can be reconciled by observing that upto Rs. 1 crore salary would be governed by the 2013 GR and if said amount surpasses Rs. 1 crore then same would be governed by the undertaking given by the State.

The university for Ghansawangi College in its letter dated 20.11.2018 addressed to the State have expressed their grievance and displeasure that since 2011-12 employees duly appointed in accordance with law are not being paid by the State as per regular pay-scale nor permanency is granted by the State though it is the responsibility of the State resulting to huge financial strain on resources of the university.

The contention of the State that in the periphery of the Model College, many private colleges have been established and therefore, now the purpose for which Model College was set up has been achieved, also cannot be a ground to deny the salaries as per the pay scale and for regularisation till this Model College continues to run. We are surprised to go through the chart which was produced by the State giving number of students in the Model College and the private colleges which were set up in the same region. The number of students in the private colleges has increased whereas, the students in the Model College has substantially reduced. We fail to understand the reason for this but it is obvious. The State Government should introspect and take steps to improve the standard of Model College so that the first preference of any student should be to join these Model Colleges over a private college. These Model Colleges should have been nurtured to become world-class institutions like IIM, IIT, AIIMS etc. However, for the reasons best known to the State, it is the other way round. At the cost of the Model College, the private colleges are flourishing. Therefore, even on this count, for no fault of the petitioners-teacher, it cannot be contended by the State that the petitioners are not entitled to regularisation and payment of salaries as per the pay scale, which is fixed for similar post for other teachers teaching in colleges affiliated to the university and non-teaching staff.

The learned Government Pleader has relied upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and submitted that this Court cannot direct the State to create posts since that is the function of legislature or executive. In our view, these judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In paragraph no. 3 of the GR dated 14.03.2013, it has been categorically stated by the State that the post will be created by the university on the same being forwarded to higher education department which in turn will be forwarded to the State for the approval. As observed by us above, in the affidavit in reply, it is admitted that the proposals were sent way back in 2011 and 2014 to the State Government but till today, the State Government has not acted upon them. As per Sections 5(9) and 5(11) of the Act of 1994, it is the duty of the university to create the posts with the approval of the State Government. When these provisions are read along with paragraph no. 3 of GR dated 14.03.2013, and the background in which the Model College was set up, the State today cannot contend that on one hand they will not act upon the proposal sent by the university for approval of the post by sitting over it for more than a decade and then make a submission before this Court that the Court cannot direct the State to create the post. This would amount to approbation and reprobation by not taking any action on the proposal and then contending that since the posts are not sanctioned, the relief claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted. The posts have already been created and the proposal has remained pending approval with the State Government for more than a decade. The university has admitted that appointments are in accordance with law. We have independently analysed and came to a conclusion that petitioners’ appointments are not illegal. We are concerned with the inaction of the State in failing to accord approval for more than a decade after the proposals for sanctioning posts were admittedly received by them from university and not with creation of posts and, therefore, the decisions relied upon by the learned Government Pleader would not be applicable to the facts of the present case before us.

The contention that these colleges were to be autonomous after a period of five years and, therefore, the above stand of the State also cannot be accepted since when the proposals were sent, the period of five years had not expired. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case when the posts are already created and are pending before the State Government for its approval for more than a decade, the reliance placed on these decisions by the learned Government Pleader cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.

On a query being raised by the Bench, the learned Government Pleader fairly submitted that in the UGC Scheme, no provision is made to deal with the contingency if the Model College does not achieve financial independence within a period of five years. However, he fairly stated that in spite of the earlier commitment of Rs. 1.5 crore, the State has increased the said commitment over a period of time. The word “Autonomous” used in the UGC Scheme and the GR cannot be construed to mean that the obligation of the State is restricted in financial terms only upto a particular amount. A college cannot be financially autonomous if the resource persons namely teacher and non-teaching staff are not compensated in accordance with law which in turn severely affects the growth of the college in improving its standard to make it financially independent. Unless the resource persons namely teaching and non-teaching staff are adequately compensated, it would lead to a situation where by the acts of the State a college is not allowed to stand on its own feet and then the State blaming the college for not being financially independent to absolve itself from financial liability.

The 1994 Act and 2016 Act do not provide for the time limit within which the State Government should approve the proposal sent by the university with regard to creation of the posts. It is settled position that when no time limit is provided for or prescribed in the Act or the Regulations then the decision in such matters must be taken within a reasonable time. What constitutes a reasonable time will depend on the scheme of the Act with which the Court is concerned. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Adjudicating Officer, Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Bhavesh Pabari^{4343.(2019) 5 SCC 90} in paragraph 35 has observed that when the period of limitation is not prescribed, such power must be exercised within a reasonable time. What reasonable time would be, depends upon facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the default, whether the third party rights had been created. The Hon’ble Supreme Court Mansaram vs. S. P. Pathak and Others^{4444.(1984) 1 SCC 125} has observed that when a power exists to effectuate a purpose, it must be exercised within a reasonable time. This proposition, according to us, is too well settled to require buttressing and further precedent.

In the instant case, since the State Government did not take any decision on the proposals sent by the university with regard to the approval of the post for more than a decade now and on a specific directive by the State, the university had no choice but the only way to run the Model College was to recruit the staff on temporary basis. Section 77 of the 1994 Act provides that the appointment on a temporary vacancy can be made for a period of more than one year. This section is referred by us only for the limited purpose for ascertaining the reasonable time within which the proposal sent to the State for approval of the posts should be decided. The UGC Regulations with regard to appointments on contractual basis also provide that such appointments should not be made for more than one academic session. Section 103 of the 2016 Act provides for filling of temporary vacancies if the vacancy is for a period of more than one year. In our view, looking at the scheme of the 1994 Act and 2016 Act read with UGC Regulations and more particularly applying the same to the facts of the present when we are concerned of situation at the inception of college itself, the reasonable time within which the State Government should have taken a decision on the proposals sent by the university for the approval of the posts should not have been more than one year from the date of receipt of such proposal. In the instant case, the proposals have been made in 2011, 2014, etc. and till today i.e. till the end of 2026 no action had been taken on such proposals. There is no satisfactory explanation for such a gross delay.

It is also important to note that the Bench of this Court comprising of their Lordship Chief Justice Dipankar Datta (as he then was) and Shri Justice Mangesh Patil on 30.09.2021 expressed their displeasure at the inaction on the part of the State in this regard and directed the State to take an appropriate decision and place a report before this Court on 05.01.2022. It is with great displeasure that we have to observe that the compliance of this order was not even made till February 2026, when this Court again expressed its displeasure by an order dated 17.02.2026 which is reproduced by us in the start of this judgment. After the order of 17.02.2026, now an affidavit is sought to be filed by the State that they are ready to approve the posts but subject to the cap of Rs. 1 crore as mentioned in the 2013 GR. We do not wish to say anything more but the inaction and disobedience shown by the State to our above two orders speak for themselves. We are constrained to observe that if the State does not comply with the timelines and directions of this Court, certainly, they are setting a bad precedent for private citizens of this country with regard to the obedience to the orders passed by the highest Court of the State.

Be that as it may. Coming to the reasonable period, in our view, as observed above, the reasonable period for taking decision on the proposals sent by the university to the State on the issue of approval of the posts would be one year. It is also settled by a catena of decisions of various Courts that if a decision is not taken within a reasonable period of time, then it is deemed to have been approved. Looking at the facts of the present case, where we are concerned with running of a Model College which is set up in the background of the UGC report which in turn is based on the announcement made by the Hon’ble Prime Minister at that point of time, the proposals pending for more than a decade should be deemed to have been approved since a Model College cannot be run by temporary appointments of the same teachers whose terms are renewed and extended from time to time.

This Court in the case of D. G. Ruparel College vs. State of Maharashtra & Others^{4545.1999 (1) L.L.N. 704} while dealing with Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules which covers of appointment of staff and which does not contains provision with regard to time within which the management of the school has to apply for approval of the appointment nor does it contain any provision with regard to the time within which approval or disapproval is to be accorded by the appropriate Court, this Court observed that in the absence of an express provision the Court has considered two months as reasonable time for making an application by the management and for the authority to take decision thereon. This Court further observed that if approval is not communicated within reasonable time then it raises a presumption of approval of the posts.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rattan Lal and Others vs. State of Haryana And Others^{4646.(1985) 4 SCC 43} observed that the State Government’s practice of appointing a large number of teachers on ad hoc basis at the commencement of an academic year and terminating their services before next summer vacation and reappointing them on ad hoc basis so as to deny them the salary for summer vacation and also other benefits that other regular teachers are generally entitled to, was held to be unreasonable, arbitrary and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

In the context of the present case, observations made in paragraph 49 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Piara Singh and others (supra) is relevant and same is reproduced herein :-

The petitioners are justified in placing reliance on the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bholanath (surpa) Jaggo (supra) and Dharam Singh (supra), wherein the Court directed regularisation of services and payment of salaries as per pay-scale by disapproving the practice of granting extension upon completion of annual contractual terms. Although in that case, the ad hoc appointments were made to sanctioned posts, in our view, this decision does supports the case of the Petitioners. In the case before us, though proposal for sanctioning of posts was admittedly sent by the university to the State, State did not take any action for more than a decade and, therefore, it shall be presumed that the posts have been sanctioned. Even the State in their latest affidavit has accepted that they would sanction the posts subject to the monetary cap of Rs. 1 crore as per the 2013 GR. We have already rejected the contention of capping Rs. 1 crore towards payment of salaries. Therefore, in the light of these facts, the decision in the case of Bholanath (supra) and other decisions relied upon by the petitioners taking a similar view lend support for grant of appropriate relief to the petitioners.

The petitioners are justified in placing reliance on the decision of the Constitution Bench of Five Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra). In the case before us, we have already observed above that the appointments were not illegal. This is also admitted by the respondents. The petitioners have been continued in the service by giving constant extensions and a technical break given to avoid the continuation of service. The State did not sanction the posts for more than a decade but on the contrary directed the university to appoint the petitioners on temporary basis and now they have admitted to sanction posts. The UGC regulating body has disapproved the action of State in this regard. There is no dispute with respect to the eligibility of the petitioners insofar as their qualification is concerned. Petitioners have worked for fairly long duration with the Model College. Therefore, in our view, the ratio of the decision in the case of Umadevi (supra) supports the claim of the petitioners for regularisation of their service and payment of salary as per the pay-scale.

The issue of regularisation and payment as per the pay-scale with regard to Model Colleges set up in the State of Tamil Nadu came up for consideration before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of S. Ramesh (supra) and in the order pronounced on 12.12.2023 on very similar facts, relief was granted by the Madras High Court to the petitioners therein, by directing respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioners for regularisation of their services.

In the case of Vinod Kumar and Others (supra) paragraph 5 reads as under :-

In the case of Jaggo (supra) paragraphs 10 and 11 reads as under :-

In the case of Sheo Narain Nagar (supra) paragraph 7 reads as under :-

In the case of Umadevi (supra) relevant paragraphs 16 and 31 reads as under :-

In our view, the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decisions relied upon by the petitioners support the case for giving relief. However, the contention that the petitioners have agreed to the conditions in the appointment letter, that their appointment is temporary and that they will not claim any permanency will have to be read in the context of the petitioners signing such an appointment letter at the first instance i.e. in the first year but on account of subsequent developments of extensions non-sanction of post till today etc. would not bind the petitioners on account of principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation.

Subsequently, on account of continuous service (though with a technical break) over a period of more than a decade and the proposal being pending before the State Government for sanction of the post and the State in the GR of 2013, undertaking to sanction the posts as and when referred to it, in our view, this would certainly be a situation where the State gave an assurance to the petitioners that the posts will be sanctioned. The undertaking of the State reproduced above also indicates that they had agreed to bear entire salary recurring expenses. Furthermore, it is the State who had directed the university to make appointments on temporary basis since the proposals were pending before them for approval. It is not the case of the State that the appointments are illegal. The university has accepted that the appointments are in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 Act. Applying the analysis made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while explaining the doctrine promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation in the case of State of Jharkhand and others vs. Brahmaputra Metallics Limited, Ranchi and Another^{4747.(2023) 10 SCC 634} and more particularly paragraphs 27 to 50 and paragraph 63 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Army Welfare Education Society vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma^{4848.(2024) 16 SCC 598}, in our view, based on the above facts, the petitioners are justified in seeking regularisation of service and payment of salary as per the pay-scale based on both these doctrines. Both these doctrines have also been reiterated and explained in the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of IFGL Refractories Limited (supra).

In such circumstances, we certainly do not agree with the submissions made by the State in opposing the grant of relief to the petitioners.

Insofar as Writ Petition No. 5111 of 2019 is concerned, the submission made by the learned counsel for the university that the petitioners were terminated cannot be accepted since in the order dated 24.07.2019 passed by this Court it is recorded by the petitioners are teaching in respondent no. 4 - Institution.

The State’s role in education is crucial for a variety of reasons. It ensures equal access to education, which in turn fosters social mobility and reduces disparities. By establishing diverse institutions, the state caters to the varying needs of students, promoting holistic development. Furthermore, education plays a pivotal role in nation-building, economic growth, and shaping an informed citizenry capable of participating in democratic processes.

Despite constitutional guidelines and ongoing efforts, the Indian education system still faces significant challenges. Quality disparities between urban and rural schools, inadequate infrastructure, outdated curricula, and unequal access to education remain concerns. Additionally, issues like teaching staff shortages and insufficient funding hinder the establishment and maintenance of high-quality educational institutions.

Therefore, it's essential for the State to both establish and maintain educational institutions. Addressing these challenges and consistently improving educational quality are crucial steps in unlocking the full potential of India's education system and its societal impact.

We may, however, observe that the petitioners would not be entitled to salary as per the pay-scale for the period prior to three years from the date of institution of the present writ petitions on account of such claim being barred by limitation. The petitioners whose services have been continued on an extension basis upto the date of filing of the petition and who are still in employment till today, would be entitled to regularisation of service and the respondent-State would approve the posts by passing appropriate orders.

In view of above, we pass the following orders :-

We end the present judgment by expressing our displeasure on the conduct of the State. “With great power comes great responsibility” and the State entrusted with furthering the cause of education has failed to carry out its obligation by acting contrary to the undertaking given to the university, failed in its duties as mandated by the Constitution of India, acting contrary to the object for which the Model Colleges were established based on the UGC report, showing utter disregard to the directions given by this Court which were not complied with for more than five years, displaying administrative inertia by sitting over the proposal for sanctioning of posts for more than a decade till today and giving directive to the university contrary to the scheme of the 1994 and 2016 Acts read with the UGC report on the basis of which Model Colleges were established and shying away from its commitment and obligation undertaken while setting up the said colleges. We hope that the most developed State of the country would introspect on these issues and take remedial measures to ensure that the colleges set up in the State serve as truly Model Colleges for other States to replicate the design and thereby contribute to the economic growth and national development to achieve the dream envisioned by the then Hon’ble Prime Minister of India on whose announcement the initiative of setting up the Model Colleges was given shape to.

Rule is made absolute in above terms. Petitions are disposed of.

Pending civil applications, if any, are disposed of.