[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mangaon Shikshan Prasarak Mandal ... vs Shri. Balasaheb Bhikaji Jagtap And Ors on 16 January, 2026
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
Digitally
2026:BHC-AS:3121-DB
signed by
PRASHANT
12-LPA-2-2013=WP-9810-2011
PRASHANT VILAS
VILAS RANE
RANE Date:
2026.01.22
13:48:26
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.2 OF 2013
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 9810 OF 2011
Mangaon Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Through
President Rajeev Sable And Ors. ...Appellants
Vs
Shri. Balasaheb Bhikaji Jagtap And Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Sushil A. Inamdar, for the Appellant.
Ms. Neha Bhide, Govt. Pleader with Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. Govt. Plearder
with Ms. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP for the State-Respondent Nos.3 & 4.
Mr. C. R. Sadasivan with Mr. Ameerul Hasan, for Respondent No.1.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 16 January, 2026
P.C.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against an order dated 8 October
2012, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the
appellants has been dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-. The appellant No.1 runs
Arts and Science College at Mangaon, District Raigad, which is recognized by the
State of Maharashtra and affiliated with the University of Mumbai. It is an aided
college.
2. Respondent No.1 was appointed by the appellant as a part time lecturer in
the open category for the subject History, pursuant to the advertisement issued on
21 June 1997. The appellant, however, described the appointment of respondent
No.1 to be a temporary appointment upto 20 April 1998. Such order was
P.V.Rane
12-LPA-2-2013=WP-9810-2011
challenged by respondent No.1 alongwith another employee who had been
similarly situated and who was sought to be removed from 20 April 1998 on expiry
of the tenure of his appointment, by filing Appeal No. 15 of 1998 before the
Presiding Officer, University Tribunal, Mumbai. The said appeal was allowed by
the judgment and order dated 28 July 1998 as rendered by the University Tribunal
whereby respondent No.1 was reinstated in the service with full backwages from 30
September 1998.
3. It appears from the record that again respondent No.1 was sought to be
removed from the service by an oral order of termination. Respondent No.1, in
these circumstances, again approached the University Tribunal by filing, this time,
Appeal No.62 of 2001. In such proceedings on 26 April 2002 the appellant and
respondent No.1filed consent terms and in pursuance thereof, the appeal itself was
disposed of as withdrawn. Under the consent terms the appellant agreed to revoke
the order of termination and accept respondent No.1 as a full time lecturer in
History to teach 'Foundation Course' and 'Advertising' with full workload.
4. These are the clear facts in regard to the employment of respondent No.1
with the appellant. It, however, appears that the State Government has taken a
position that it would not sanction the full time appointment of respondent No.1
qua the post held by respondent No.1 although it was so agreed in the consent
terms between the appellant and respondent No.1. In this view of the matter, the
appellant did not comply with the obligation under the consent terms that is to
take a position that respondent No.1 would be continued in the employment of the
appellant. This resulted in further litigation between the parties, a contempt
P.V.Rane
12-LPA-2-2013=WP-9810-2011
petition was filed in this Court being contempt petition No.98 of 1999 which
came to be disposed of in terms of an order dated 16 April 2007 in terms of the
minutes of the order, wherein the parties agreed that respondent No.1 would accept
the workload as approved by the Government and he will not claim any backwages
from the appellant, and that the appellant will extend all co-operation. The consent
terms however were not complied, and a fresh termination was imposed on
respondent No.1 on 21 February 2009. Being aggrieved by such termination,
respondent No.1 approached the University tribunal by filing another appeal being
Appeal No.12 of 2009 which came to be decided by a judgment and order dated
17 September 2009 passed by the University Tribunal as assailed in the Writ
Petition on which the impugned order has been passed.
5. It appears from the record that the only contention as urged on behalf of the
appellant before the learned Single Judge and most importantly not disputing as to
what had transpired in the earlier proceedings, was to the effect that the State
Government was not creating an additional post qua the appointment of
respondent No.1 and/or approving the appointment of respondent No.1, and it is
for this reason it was not possible for the appellant to continue the services of
respondent No.1. It is only on such ground that the termination of respondent
No.1, dated 21 February 2009, was sought to be justified by the appellant as legal
and valid. Further, a contention was raised, referring to the orders passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court dated 16 April 2007 on the contempt petition,
which are minutes of the order, that such order would, in fact, give credence to the
termination dated 21 February 2009, as respondent No.1 had accepted the
P.V.Rane
12-LPA-2-2013=WP-9810-2011
position that the workload approved by the Government would be accepted and
that it would not claim backwages from the appellant.
6. It is on such backdrop we have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant would not have any different submissions
from what was advanced before the learned Single Judge. It is quite clear that
before the termination in question dated 21 February 2009, there were earlier two
rounds of appeal before the University Tribunal as noted by us hereinabove. In the
first round, the termination was set aside by an order dated 28 July 1998 passed by
the University Tribunal, granting reinstatement to respondent No.1 with full
backwages. It was followed by the oral termination for which again respondent
No.1 was required to move the University Tribunal in an Appeal No.62 of 2001
which came to be disposed of in terms of the consent terms filed in the appeal and
the appeal is accordingly disposed of. This was followed by a termination in
question dated 21 February 2009 which was in fact contrary and in the teeth of the
said two orders passed by the University Tribunal which brought about a clear
position that respondent No.1 was required to be continued in service of the
appellant. Also respondent No.1 had approached this Court in the proceedings of
Contempt Petition No.98 of 1999 as noted by us hereinabove. The only
contention as urged on behalf of the appellant was that the State Government was
not approving the post and for such reason it was necessary to terminate the
services. This was untenable in the facts of the present case and more particularly
on the backdrop of the earlier two concluded proceedings before the University
Tribunal by virtue of which respondent No.1 was required to be continued in
P.V.Rane
12-LPA-2-2013=WP-9810-2011
service. We find that once the appellant had taken a position that for all reasons
which were available to the appellant, there being no other reasons to terminate the
service of respondent No.1 on grounds not different on the earlier two occasions
such action to impose a fresh termination could not have been passed. It was not
permissible for the appellant, in the teeth of the judicial orders passed by the
University Tribunal, to take contrary position.
8. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the appointment of respondent
No. 1 was a regular appointment made by following the proper procedure. The
termination in question was against the backdrop of respondent No. 1 having been
wrongly removed from services on two earlier occasions, which removals were
subsequently interfered with by the Court. Therefore, merely because the
Government was not willing to bear the financial burden of respondent No. 1's
salary by approving his appointment, the appellant could not have taken a position
refusing to comply with the Court's order, and/or for that matter any cause would
be available to the appellant for fresh termination. We find that even the orders
passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Contempt Petition No. 98 of
1999, cannot in any manner construed that it would confer any authority on the
appellant to terminate the services. In fact, the learned Single Judge has rightly
observed that the proper course of action for the appellant was to pursue an
appropriate proceedings against the State Government or the University, if any
additional posts are required to be created and granted approval / sanction insofar
as aid is concerned. However, no termination could have been imposed merely
because the Government was not granting an approval on its proposal for creation
P.V.Rane
12-LPA-2-2013=WP-9810-2011
of additional post. As this could not have been any ground so as to disturb the
legal and valid appointment as made by the appellant, and as observed by the
tribunal in the earlier two orders as also accepted by the appellant. Thus, looked
from any angle, the tribunal in allowing respondent No.1's appeal in question
(Appeal No. 12 of 2009) was justified in passing the order dated 17 September
2009 awarding reinstatement of respondent No.1 by setting aside the termination
removal dated 21 February 2009.
9. We accordingly find that the appeal wholly lacks merit. It is hence rejected.
We are informed that the appellant is yet to be paid the arrears of salary. The
appellant is directed to pay the arrears of salary / wages to respondent No.1 as
expeditiously as possible, in any event, within eight weeks from today.
10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed subject to our above observations, we
refrain from imposing costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
P.V.Rane
