Bombay High Court
Gangadhar Kacharu Dukare vs Muktainagar Taluka Education So And ... on 15 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:29270
(1) WP-179-2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 179 OF 2005
Gangadhar Kacharu Dukare
Age: 32 years, Occu: Service,
Leacturer in History,
Smt. G. G. Khadase Science &
Smt. K. M. Chaudhary Arts &
Commerce College, Muktainagar,
Dist. Jalgaon, R/o. Khupti,
Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] Muktainagar Taluka Education Society,
Muktainagar, Dist. Jalgaon,
Through its Chairman.
2] The Principal,
Smt. G. G. Khadase Science &
Smt. K. M. Chaudhary Arts &
Commerce College, Muktainagar,
Dist. Jalgaon.
3] The North Maharashtra University,
Jalgaon, through its Registrar. ...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Kailas B. Jadhav, Advocate for
the Petitioner.
Mr. S. R. Barlinge, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
None for Respondent No.3.
Ethape
(2) WP-179-2005
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
RESERVED ON : 25th SEPTEMBER 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 15th OCTOBER 2025.
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Heard Mr. Hon, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and
Mr. Barlinge, the learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Inspite of service, none appears for the Respondent No.3/University.
The petition is heard finally by consent of parties for final disposal.
2. A challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order passed by the
learned Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Aurangabad,
dated 26-08-2004 passed in an Appeal No. NMU-07 of 2004.
3. By way of impugned Judgment and Order, the learned Presiding
Officer was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the present petitioner
seeking quashment of his termination order passed by present
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, terminating his services. Respondent No. 3 is
the University to which the College is affiliated.
Ethape
(3) WP-179-2005
4. It is the case of the petitioner that, he was possessing qualification
of M.A. in History and was eligible to be appointed as a lecturer in
Senior College for the subject of History. He belongs to Wadar caste,
which comes under NT(A) and DT(A). It is further his case is that he was
selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee and appointed by
the Management. His further case is that the termination order amounts
to be stigmatic, and therefore, it was necessary to conduct an inquiry
before passing an order.
5. On the contrary, the case of the Respondent-Management, in short,
is that the petitioner was appointed purely on a temporary and part-time
basis. He was not qualified as he was not possessing qualification of NET
or SET. Therefore, in view of regulations of the University Grants
Commission, he was not eligible as a lecturer. His appointment was also
subject to acquiring this qualification. The order is not stigmatic and is
purely for the reason that the petitioner could not fulfill the eligibility
criteria. Thus, the appointment is non-stigmatic, and consequently, no
inquiry was necessary.
Ethape
(4) WP-179-2005
6. The facts not disputed in the present petition are that, petitioner
happens to be a person belonging to Reserve Category. An advertisement
was issued by the Management on 18-08-1999 inviting applications for
the post of lecturers. The Management had called for names from the
Backward Class (B.C.) Cell of the University. The petitioner, thereafter,
appeared in the interview before the Selection Committee and was
selected on 09-12-1999. The petitioner, thereafter, came to be
terminated. He was again called and was appointed. However, finally on
31-03-2024, he was again given a notice of termination on the ground of
absenteeism and non-satisfactory performance.
7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hon, vehemently argued that the
petitioner was appointed as a qualified person. The appointment was on
probationary basis. Looking to the order, it states that the petitioner's
performance was not satisfactory, that the students were not satisfied
with his performance, and that he remained absent. The petitioner did
not have sufficient knowledge of his subject. He thus submits that, all
the things mentioned in the termination order clearly show that the
Ethape
(5) WP-179-2005
order is stigmatic. By that time, the petitioner had worked for five years
with the institution, therefore, his services could not have been
terminated without conducting an inquiry. He thus submits that the
order of termination was totally illegal. The learned Presiding Officer of
the Tribunal failed to appreciate these material facts and dismissed the
appeal. He submits that, the post of lecturer in History subject is still
vacant, and the petitioner can be appointed even now. He thus submits
that the petition deserves to be allowed.
8. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hon further submits that though the
NET-SET qualification was necessary at the relevant time. However, by
way of subsequent Government Resolution (G.R.) in the year 2013, the
Government had relaxed the condition of possessing NET-SET
qualification.
9. The learned Advocate Mr. Barlinge, appearing for Respondent Nos.
1 and 2, vehemently opposes the petition. By inviting attention to all the
orders of appointment, he submits that the appointment of the petitioner
Ethape
(6) WP-179-2005
was as a part-time teacher and subject to acquiring NET/SET
qualification. The approval by the University was also as a part-time
teacher. G.R. of 2013 issued will not help the petitioner, as the
Government Resolution dated 22-12-1995 was in force, when the
petitioner was appointed and later on terminated. The mentioning of
non-satisfactory performance, in no case, would make order stigmatic
one. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated all these contentions. There
was no inquiry necessary as the petitioner was terminated on the ground
of not possessing requisite qualification and unsatisfactory performance.
The petitioner had even approached the University Grievance
Committee. The University had not granted approval as a full-time
permanent teacher. He further submits that, even as on today, there is
nothing to show that the petitioner possesses the NET and SET
qualifications. The Government Resolution dated 27-06-2013 cannot be
made applicable unless the University grants the exemption from
acquiring necessary qualification. No teacher without requisite
qualification can be continued in service. Even in G.R. of 2013 requires
Ethape
(7) WP-179-2005
certain conditions, which are also not fulfilled by the petitioner. He thus
prays for rejection of the petition.
10. The learned Senior Advocate, in rejoinder, submits that in the
advertisement, there is nothing to show that the advertisement was
issued for a part-time lecturer. G.R. of 2013 covers the period from 2000
onwards, and thus, the petitioner's case can be still considered.
11. On going through the submissions and the petition, the questions
those arise are: firstly, as to whether the petitioner's appointment was as
a full-time permanent lecturer; secondly, whether the petitioner's
services could have been terminated without holding any inquiry;
thirdly, whether the termination order amounts to a stigmatic or a
simpliciter termination; and fourthly, whether the petitioner is eligible
and whether petition can be allowed by directing reinstatement.
12. This Court has gone through the record annexed to the petition. It
is seen that the petitioner was having a qualification of M.A. in History
from Pune University. About his caste certificate, there is no dispute. A
Ethape
(8) WP-179-2005
certificate is on record. The advertisement dated 18-08-1999 shows that
applications were called for various posts, including a lecturer in History.
It clearly stipulates the qualification as minimum of 45% marks in
master's course. It is also further stated that the person must have the
qualification of NET-SET. The first appointment was issued on 09-12-
1999 showing that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time lecturer.
There is no dispute about this. The appointment further shows that the
appointment is subject to contents as per G.R. dated 22-12-1995, which
requires a person to have the qualification of NET and SET. It does not
show that it was a permanent appointment. The petitioner was
thereafter again appointed on 27-03-2000. In this appointment also, it is
clearly stated that the appointment is on a part-time basis and subject to
the G.R. dated 22-12-1995, and it was necessary to acquire qualification
of NET and SET. Third appointment is dated 22-11-2001. There is also a
communication dated 22-11-2001. It was clearly stated that his
appointment is coming to an end on 22-12-2001. This communication
clearly stated that a notice of termination was given well in advance.
Ethape
(9) WP-179-2005
13. However, subsequently, the management issued another
communication dated 05-02-2003. The petitioner was requested to
continue as a lecturer by withdrawing the earlier order. The petitioner,
therefore, joined on 12-04-2003, pursuant to the order dated 27-02-
2003.
14. On 31-03-2004, a notice was issued, and in this notice, it is stated
that there are complaints from the students about non-satisfactory
teaching by the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner was
remaining absent. In this notice, it was stated that the services would be
terminated on 30-04-2004. It is thus seen that, in the order of
termination, there is a reference of receipt of complaints from the
students about non-satisfactory performance of the petitioner. The
question would be whether to call this notice as stigmatic. So far as
acquiring of NET and SET qualification, this Court finds that there is
nothing to indicate that the petitioner was possessing NET-SET
qualification, and therefore, he was not eligible to be appointed as a
lecturer. So far as the contention of the petitioner that, by way of
Ethape
( 10 ) WP-179-2005
Government Resolution of 2013, the NET-SET qualification was relaxed
by the Government. It is seen in the present case that the petitioner
already stood terminated in the year 2004. There was no question of
making G.R. of 2013 applicable to him. Looking at the G.R., the wording
shows that it applies only to lecturers who are still in service. The G. R.
also requires that there is a proposal sent by University to continue such
lecturer in service.
15. The Learned Tribunal has recorded that when the petitioner was
informed about his non-satisfactory performance, he himself by
communication dated 27-08-2003 had accepted that he was not in a
position to give satisfactory performance and requested to give some
other work in the college other than the teaching work. The Tribunal
has, therefore, rightly concluded that no inquiry was necessary under
such circumstances. Ultimately, the termination order states only about
non-satisfactory work and has not put any other charge on the petitioner
as such.
Ethape
( 11 ) WP-179-2005
16. The learned Presiding Officer, thereafter, rightly came to
conclusion that though the inquiry was not held assuming that it was
necessary, however, since the petitioner was not qualified, he could not
have been appointed, and therefore, reinstatement cannot be directed.
This Court also finds that the basic question would be as to whether the
petitioner can be appointed to the post of lecturer in absence of the
qualification. The learned Senior Advocate relied upon the following
judgments.
(i) In the case of Madha Taluka Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs.
Prashant Kamlakar Narkhande and Ors.1, this Court, in the said
judgment, held that when the order is stigmatic, it was necessary to hold
an inquiry. It is further held that the regulations framed by the University
Grants Commission (UGC) are binding upon the universities, teachers
and colleges affiliated to such universities, and in the said petition that
regulation was applicable. In that case, the petitioner had served for five
years. In that case, the Court found that the order was stigmatic, and
1 2016(5) Bom.C.R. 253
Ethape
( 12 ) WP-179-2005
therefore, it was set aside.
(ii) In the case of Kodandpani R. Kulkarni Vs. Headmistress and Ors. 2,
it was found that the procedure of termination was not followed. There,
the employee was appointed on probation. The order was found to be
stigmatic, and it was held that the termination order was illegal.
17. The further reliance is on the UGC guidelines communicated in
August 2011. It speaks about the exemption granted by the universities
in the State of Maharashtra from the requirement of NET in terms of
UGC Regulations 1991. It was considered that the appointments made
during 19-09-1991 till 03-04-2000, were considered for relaxation from
the qualification. However, it was in the year 2011. This Court finds that
therefore it would not be applicable to the present case, even though the
initial appointment of the petitioner was in the year 1999. However, it is
the fact that in 2004 itself, he was terminated and was not in service on
the day when this communication was issued. The further reliance of the
petitioner on G.R. dated 18-10-2001, is also of no use. It clearly states
2 2011(5) Bom C.R. 403
Ethape
( 13 ) WP-179-2005
that the exemption is only for the persons who were appointed prior to
11-12-1999. On this basis, the G.R. dated 27-06-2013 was issued by the
Government. Clause 15 (d) shows that to claim exemption, there has to
be a proposal sent by the university. In the present case, no such
proposal was sent by the university for relaxation of the conditions in
the case of the present petitioner. There was again a decision taken on
29-10-2021 by the Government of Maharashtra. However, the same
again speaks that the services which are continued till 2013 are for the
pension purposes.
18. The petitioner has also relied upon the judgment passed by this
Court at Principal Seat in the case of Dr. Mahesh S/o. Prabhakar Kulthe
and Ors. Vs. The Union of India and Ors. in the Writ Petition No. 10149
of 2010. The Division Bench of this Court had considered the cases of
the petitioners for exemption from passing NET. It was held that the
persons who were appointed during the period from 1991 to 2000. The
Authorities were directed to consider the cases of the petitioners therein
for grant of exemption from passing NET-SET with reference to the
Ethape
( 14 ) WP-179-2005
observations made in the petition. It was on the direction to consider the
cases. This Court does find that even this case will not help the
petitioner in this petition.
19. This Court finds that no case is made out to allow the writ petition.
Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
(ii) Rules stands discharged in above terms.
[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
Ethape
