Bombay High Court Raps State For “Administrative Inertia” In Sitting Over Proposal For Sanction Of Posts For Over A Decade
The Bench directed regularisation and UGC pay-scale for temporary teachers and staff of Model Colleges in Jalna and Hingoli, holds State cannot cap its liability at Rs. 1 crore and rejects plea that appointment letters bar their claim.
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench has criticised the State of Maharashtra for “administrative inertia” in sitting over a university’s proposals for sanction of posts at its Model Colleges for more than a decade, and has directed regularisation of the teachers and staff who were kept on temporary appointments. The Court held that the State cannot rely on its own inaction to dispute the appointments, and that the proposals pending since 2011 and 2014 must be treated as deemed approved.
The Bench noted that where the State sits over a university’s proposal for sanction of posts for more than a decade, the proposals must be deemed approved, since a Model College cannot be run on temporary appointments renewed year after year. It fixed a reasonable period for such a decision at one year, while allowing a batch of petitions by teachers and non-teaching staff of the Model Colleges at Ghansawangi (Jalna) and Hingoli. It directed regularisation and fixation of salary in the university or UGC pay-scale. It held that the State is bound by its undertaking to bear the entire recurring expenditure and cannot confine its liability to Rs. 1 crore.
A Bench of Justice Kishore C. Sant and Justice Jitendra Jain observed, “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 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”.
“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”, the Bench, at the outset, remarked.
Senior Advocate N.B. Khandare appeared for the petitioner and A.B. Girase, Government Pleader appeared for the respondent.
The Model Colleges were set up under a UGC scheme in districts with low enrolment. A Government Resolution of March 14, 2013 allowed a Model College at Ghansawangi, with the State to bear recurring costs. The Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University and the Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University advertised posts for 11 months each year from 2011, and renewed appointments after a short technical break. Proposals for sanction of posts were sent to the State in 2011 and 2014 and remain undecided. The petitioners worked for 10 to 12 years on consolidated pay.
The State argued the petitioners were not appointed in accordance with the Maharashtra Universities Acts, no posts were sanctioned, courts cannot create posts, the petitioners accepted temporary terms, and its liability is capped at Rs. 1 crore.
The Bench held that the appointments were made after advertisement and by a selection committee, and any defect in its constitution is cured by Section 111 of the 1994 Act and Section 143 of the 2016 Act. It observed that the “temporary vacancy” provisions do not apply to these posts. It held that the State, by sitting on the proposals and directing temporary appointments, could not rely on the absence of sanctioned posts, and that the petitioners’ acceptance of temporary terms does not bind them given promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. It found violations of Articles 14, 16, 38, 39, 47 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
“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”, the Bench said.
The Court directed fixation of salary in the applicable pay-scale from the date of appointment, with monetary benefit only from three years before the filing of the petitions. It ordered regularisation of those in continuous service and payment of arrears within six months without interest, failing which interest at 6% per annum applies.
The Bench expressed displeasure at the State’s inaction and its non-compliance with earlier orders of September 30, 2021 and February 17, 2026.
Cause Title: Kannulal Vitore & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:52690-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate N.B. Khandare with Advocate M.P. Tripathi, and Advocates S.B. Ghatol Patil and Pradnya Talekar.
Respondent: Government Pleader A.B. Girase, Advocates U.S. Malte and S.S., S.W. Munde, A.D. Aghav.