[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Prof Laxman Shivaji Godse vs All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society ... on 17 January, 2026

    2026:BHC-AS:2088


                                                                                WP-12071-2024-06.01.26.doc



                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                               WRIT PETITION NO. 12071 OF 2024

                       Prof Laxman Shivaji Godse                                             Petitioner
                                  Versus
                       All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society & Anr                         Respondents


                           Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh, a/w Vaidehi Pradeep & Pratham
                           Gavali Advocates for the Petitioner.
                           Mr. Shrikrishna R. Ganbavale, a/w Shantanu Patil Advocates for
                           Respondent No.2.

                                                 CORAM:        SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

                                                 DATE:         January 17, 2026

                      Judgement:

1. Rule. By consent of parties, made returnable forthwith and taken

up for final hearing and disposal.

Context and Factual Background:

2. This Petition impugns the decision of the Grievance Committee

passed by an Order dated March 11, 2022 and an Order dated October

30, 2023 passed by the University Tribunal (collectively, "Impugned ASHWINI JANARDAN Order"), on the premise that the specific entitlements of the Petitioner VALLAKATI

have not been dealt with and the contentions of the Petitioner,

January 17, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati

WP-12071-2024-06.01.26.doc

specifically made in relation to the factual matrix of the case, have been

ignored.

3. The factual matrix relevant for purposes of this Petition may be

summarized thus :-

a) The Petitioner, Laxman Shivaji Godse ("Petitioner")

joined Respondent No.2, College (collectively, with

Respondent No. 1, "Respondents") as a Lecturer in the

Electrical Engineering Department. Thereafter, the

Petitioner was formally absorbed on a regular and full-time

basis as a Lecturer on July 25, 1998;

b) The Petitioner's appointment was approved on

August 10, 1998 and from this date, the eligibility of the

Petitioner under the 'Career Advancement Scheme' ("CAS")

commenced;

c) On August 10, 2004, the Petitioner completed six

years of regular service, thereby being eligible for promotion

to the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) under the CAS norms

with the Fifth Pay Commission benefits being applicable;

d) On September 22, 2004, the Petitioner completed his

January 17, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati

WP-12071-2024-06.01.26.doc

Masters in Electrical Engineering;

e) Eventually, the University constituted an Expert

Committee for purposes of assessing CAS benefits of various

employees in January 2009. The sittings of the Expert

Committee for purposes of CAS benefits were held at

Sinhgad College of Engineering on January 31, 2009. The

Petitioner was not recommended for the post of Lecturer

(Senior Scale);

f) The Petitioner sought information as to the reasons

for him not being recommended, in exercise of his rights

under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is the

Petitioner's case that the reasons for non-recommendation

were cryptic, vague and not supported by any material;

g) According to the Petitioner, throughout the relevant

period, records of the performance appraisal, such as

performance reviews or confidential reports of the Petitioner

had not been shared with him. Therefore, it is his contention

that the reasons for him not being recommended are

arbitrary;

January 17, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati

WP-12071-2024-06.01.26.doc

h) The Petitioner filed Complaint No.23 of 2019 before

the Grievance Committee seeking issuance of directions to

grant him CAS benefits right from his first eligibility in 2004,

and thereafter, to the next level in terms of the All India

Council For Technical Education ("AICTE") norms for CAS

benefits;

i) The Grievance Committee framed an issue as to

whether the Petitioner was eligible for CAS benefits and had

a valid grievance about being denied the same. The

Grievance Committee held that the Expert Committee had

taken a view on the basis of existing norms and therefore, if

they did not recommend him, no fault could be found for the

Petitioner not being granted CAS benefits;

j) The University Tribunal, considering a challenge to

the decision of the Grievance Committee under Section 81 of

the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 also took a

view that since the Expert Committee was an independent

committee and it did not recommend the Petitioner for CAS

benefits, no fault could be found with the decision of the

Grievance Committee;

January 17, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati

WP-12071-2024-06.01.26.doc

k) The University Tribunal examined the criteria that

would be relevant for considering the grant of CAS benefits

and simply held that considering that the composition of the

Committee comprised external persons, and the Committee

made no discrimination specifically targeted against the

Petitioner, the Petitioner's grievance was without merit. The

Tribunal held that the Committee evaluated the performance

of 37 teachers, including the Petitioner and recommended 22

teachers for grant of Senior Scale, while 15 teachers including

the Petitioner were not recommended.

Contentions of the Parties:

4. Against this backdrop, I have heard Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh,

Learned Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. Shrikrishna

Ganbavale, Learned Advocate on behalf of the Respondents extensively,

and perused the record with their assistance.

5. Mr. Deshmukh's primary contention is that the Tribunal has

explicitly noted that the Performance Appraisal Report assessed and

evaluated by the CAS Committee were the reports relating to the period

between April 1, 2005 and June 30, 2008 - clearly, the period after the

date of his entitlement to advancement. The report given by the

January 17, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati

WP-12071-2024-06.01.26.doc

Selection Committee was also examined by the Tribunal and the

Tribunal noted that the Committee had stated that the scrutiny of the

documents submitted by the Petitioner led to a unanimous

recommendation that he was not found fit because he did not fulfil all

the conditions laid down by the AICTE and the University and therefore

did not recommend his name for benefits in the Senior Scale.

6. According to Mr. Deshmukh, it is clear from the Impugned Order

that the Selection Committee considered the service record of the

candidates and evaluated the performance of the teachers as reflected in

the self appraisal form and the appraisal reports to arrive at its view that

the Petitioner was not deserving of CAS benefits. The Tribunal formed a

view that merely because the Committee comprised external experts, no

bias could be perceived. According to Mr. Deshmukh, the fatal error

involved is the fact that, admittedly, the performance appraisal reports

presented by the Respondents to the Expert Committee related to the

years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08.

7. He would point out that the eligibility for CAS benefits was an

entitlement due in 2004 when the Petitioner completed six years of

regular service and that obviously, the performance appraisal reports for

the period preceding 2004 were not even considered by the Committee.

January 17, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati

WP-12071-2024-06.01.26.doc

Merely because the Expert Committee was not formed in time, Mr.

Deshmukh would contend, the Petitioner ought not to be denied his

right to be considered for promotion at the relevant time. The

consideration of performance appraisal reports for the period

immediately preceding the Committee being convened, is in conflict

with the requirements of the AICTE guidelines, Mr. Deshmukh would

submit, when it was meant to examine performance appraisal reports

for the period preceding the due date of promotion. Since the decision

was based on irrelevant information, it is contended, the decision is

rendered arbitrary.

8. Mr. Deshmukh would submit that the Petitioner had specifically

raised a grievance with the Grievance Committee pointing out that he

had never been given the performance appraisal reports for the period

subsequent to the due date of consideration, and therefore, he was

clueless about purportedly adverse remarks having been made about

him by the evaluating authority. Mr. Deshmukh would point to an

explicit submission dated February 4, 2020 made to the Grievance

Committee, which has not been dealt with at all by the Grievance

Committee in its order dated March 11, 2022.

9. In contrast, Mr. Ganbavale, on behalf of the Respondents, would

January 17, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati

WP-12071-2024-06.01.26.doc

submit that the Respondents cannot be held responsible for any breach

by the Expert Committee, even assuming that the grievances raised by

the Petitioner were accurate. He would submit that the records made

available to the Expert Committee by the Respondents correctly related

to the relevant period for which performance needs to be examined by

the Expert Committee - if the performance proximate to the

consideration of the record and assessment for promotion is bad, there

need not be a recommendation.

10. According to Mr. Ganbavale, the constitution of the Expert

Committee is not within the control of the Respondents and therefore, it

cannot be faulted for the delay in consideration of the Petitioner's

application for extension of CAS benefits to him. Having convened in

2009, the Expert Committee rightly considered the then available

performance appraisal reports and therefore, the Respondents cannot

be faulted for the grievance being raised on behalf of the Petitioner.

11. Both Learned Advocates would spar over other disputes between

their respective clients and whether or not such disputes influenced the

manner of conduct of the assessment by the Expert Committee which

led to denial of CAS benefits to the Petitioner.

January 17, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati

WP-12071-2024-06.01.26.doc

Analysis and Findings:

12. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion,

it is not possible for a writ court to express an opinion on the merits of

whether or not the Petitioner would be eligible for CAS benefits. That

would be a decision on merits, falling in the domain of expertise, for

which due process entails the formation of an Expert Committee to

make such assessment. However, what squarely falls for consideration

in the writ jurisdiction is whether the Expert Committee was given and

considered relevant material or whether it considered irrelevant

material, thereby vitiating the decision taken.

13. What is evident from the record is that the Expert Committee

indeed met only in 2009, while the Petitioner's entitlement to be

considered for CAS arose in 2004. The Expert Committee had indeed

convened with inordinate and unexplained delay and a scheme of

statutory benefits for incentivizing teachers under the AICTE's policy

has been delayed for no fault of the teachers.

14. On the face of the record, the material presented to the Expert

Committee relates to a period that is not stipulated for purposes of

assessment in terms of the AICTE's norms. Indeed, the Respondents

cannot be held responsible for the delay in the formation of the Expert

January 17, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati

WP-12071-2024-06.01.26.doc

Committee, but the information supplied to the Expert Committee is

indeed information supplied by the Respondents. Indeed, the

candidates would provide self assessment reports, but the performance

appraisal reports assessed by the Expert Committee are those provided

by the Respondents and not by the Petitioner.

15. Therefore, it would not be possible to accept the view that the

Respondents have no role whatsoever to play in the process of

assessment and that the process is a matter entirely outside the pale of

influence of the Respondents. It is evident that when the Respondents

finalized a list of eligible employees for purposes of consideration under

the CAS Scheme as per the Fifth Pay Commission, the Respondents

indeed included the Petitioner's name for consideration by the Expert

Committee. Explicitly, the statement published by the Respondents,

which lists the Petitioner's name, records the "due date" of placement in

"Lecturer (Senior Scale)" as August 10, 2004. Likewise, it is apparent

that the Respondents have no quarrel about the due date of placement

in the "Lecturer (Selection Grade)" as August 10, 2009.

16. Therefore, it is common ground between the parties that

indisputably the due date for consideration of promotion to the Senior

Scale was August 10, 2004 and for Selection Grade was August 10,

January 17, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati

WP-12071-2024-06.01.26.doc

2009. The presentation of such information by the Respondents is in

fact responsive to, and in conformity with, the format stipulated by

AICTE for purposes of such consideration by the Expert Committee.

The format stipulates identifying the due date for placement in the

relevant scale under the AICTE's respective scales. Therefore, there can

be no quarrel about whether the Petitioner was due for consideration of

placement in the Senior Scale on August 10, 2004.

17. Therefore, the question to be answered is what material and data

would inform the decision for entitlement to CAS benefits. If the

consideration for an escalation in pay is due as of a certain date, would

information relating to the period after the due date be relevant or

irrelevant factors. The response to this would inform whether the

decision was arbitrary or reasoned.

18. Both Learned Advocates submit that this question is not covered

by any precedent. Mr. Deshmukh would contend that the CAS benefits

are an entitlement, while Mr. Ganbavale would contend that they are a

privilege. Each of the Learned Advocates tendered various policy

documents, Government Resolutions, directives and notifications of the

AICTE to assist the Court in appreciating the policy intent underlying

the CAS benefits. A few relevant ones are discussed below.

January 17, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati

WP-12071-2024-06.01.26.doc

Maharashtra's 1999 GR:

19. Both Learned Advocates rely on the resolution of the Government

of Maharashtra dated December 18, 1999, dealing with the AICTEs

CAS policy ("1999 GR"), which indicates that the AICTE scheme is

applicable to all teachers and the revised scales of pay would be

applicable to all of them, subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria. The

effective date for revision of scales under the 1999 GR was fixed as

January 19, 1996. In other words, the revisions took retrospective effect

for the preceding three-years, with the manner of fixation being

governed by the 1999 GR.

20. Paragraph 6 of the 1999 GR requires teachers desirous of opting

for the revised pay scale having to, within one month, execute an

agreement in the stipulated form with the educational institution about

their acceptance of the terms and conditions set out in the 1999 GR.

Teachers who were in service as of January 1, 1996 and those who could

not be in service after that date owing to termination, and thereby would

not be around to exercise the option were deemed to have opted for the

revised pay scales with effect from January 1, 1996 and "should be held

entitled to the benefit" of the 1999 GR. Likewise, even if a beneficiary

were to not exercise the option within one month, such person would be

January 17, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati

WP-12071-2024-06.01.26.doc

deemed to have opted for the revised pay scales.

21. Therefore, in my opinion, even a plain reading of the 1999 GR

would indicate that participation for the CAS benefits constituted an

entitlement and not a privilege. Any teacher, lecturer and other persons

for whose benefit the scheme has been formulated could be entitled to

the revised pay scales so long as the eligibility criteria are met.

Therefore, it is not a matter of unbridled discretion as to whether or not

an employee may get CAS benefits. The discretion to grant or refrain

from granting the benefits is to be reasonably exercised in the matter of

examining if the eligibility criteria are met, in accordance with the

specific guidelines stipulated by the AICTE at a policy level and by the

Government of Maharashtra at the implementation level for the State of

Maharashtra.

22. Paragraph 9 of the 1999 GR explicitly provides that the minimum

length of service for eligibility to move into the grade of "Lecturer

(Senior Scale)" would be four years for those with PhD; five-years for

those with M.E. or M. Tech; and six-years for others. Likewise, for

eligibility to move into the grade of "Lecturer (Selection Grade)", the

length of service as a Lecturer (Senior Scale) would uniformly be five

years. For every upward movement, a selection process was required to

January 17, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati

WP-12071-2024-06.01.26.doc

be evolved for which appropriate guidelines were to be laid down by the

AICTE in consultation with the Government of India.

2000 AICTE Notification:

23. A plain reading of the AICTE Notification dated March 15, 2000

("AICTE Notification") would show that the scheme was meant to cover

all teachers of the educational institutions which are covered by the

AICTE Act. Specific cadre structures and stipulations had been made. It

is common ground between the parties that the 1999 GR is consistent

with the AICTE policy, which then indicates that guidelines would be

evolved for this purpose from time to time by the AICTE.

GOM's Directives:

24. It is also seen from the record that the Government of

Maharashtra issued a communication dated February 14, 2002 to all

educational institutions covered by the AICTE norms, invoking the Fifth

Pay Commission recommendations and explicitly provided that the

committees were expected to be constituted at the earliest and that, in

no circumstances delays should be found in the implementation of the

AICTE norms. It was directed that the committee must convene in a

timely fashion and the administration of the respective college and

January 17, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati

WP-12071-2024-06.01.26.doc

educational institution would have total responsibility to ensure that the

committee for purposes of assessing CAS is indeed constituted and

timely decisions are taken.

25. Representation of the Government on the committee was

underlined as a matter of utmost necessity. The communication urged

urgent and serious attention to the subject by all the educational

institutions, to ensure that the 1999 GR was truly implemented.

26. On November 8, 2004, the Government of Maharashtra issued a

further set of directions by which the composition of the committee was

stipulated. It is seen that the Principal of the respective educational

institution was to be an integral member of the committee. This

direction dated November 8, 2004 explicitly directed that a committee

for making such recommendations was required to be presented with

data by the educational institution. Every year, to avail of the CAS

benefits, invitations were to be extended and consideration ought to

have been made in January and June of every year.

27. From the aforesaid, in my opinion, it is clear that as early as

November 8, 2004 (which is proximate to the due date of promotion to

which the Petitioner was entitled to be considered for his first round of

assessment under the CAS), the AICTE norms, read with the 1999 GR

January 17, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati

WP-12071-2024-06.01.26.doc

had been operationalized by the Government of Maharashtra with

regular follow up, necessitating the constitution of the Committee with

recommendations being made twice a year so that no members of the

teaching staff are left out for assessment under the CAS. The

entitlement to be considered under CAS is therefore an entitlement

created under the law and policy governing their career progression,

and it cannot be the fault of the teachers if the constitution of the

Committee and its implementation are delayed.

Maharashtra's 2015 GR:

28. It is noteworthy that on October 17, 2015, the Government of

Maharashtra passed another Resolution which dealt with CAS benefits.

It was resolved that the qualifications and experience for direct

recruitment and for CAS placements from January 1, 2006 to

September 10, 2012 would continue to be the same as per the

recruitment rules under the Fifth Pay Commission published on

September 5, 2000.

29. As a separate matter, by July 8, 2019, it became clear that the

Government of Maharashtra stepped up the intensity of this

requirement by directing that the Committee must meet every month to

ensure that there is no backlog in implementation of the norms.

January 17, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati

WP-12071-2024-06.01.26.doc

Further, certain revised conditions for CAS under the Sixth Pay

Commission came to be notified and it was made clear that the Selection

Committee meetings must be held promptly and its processes must be

completed within a timeframe of six months from the application by the

respective candidates for placement under the CAS benefits.

30. It was specifically provided that the CAS benefits constitute a

personal promotion to the incumbent teacher. If the candidates who

offer themselves for assessment under CAS fulfill the minimum

academic performance indicator scores and conform to the requisite

performance based appraisal system, the candidates must be considered

within a period of six months and a decision must be taken one way or

the other. In any event, it was directed that the university and the

educational institution concerned must issue a general circular twice a

year calling for applications for CAS from eligible candidates.

31. It was made clear that a candidate who applies immediately on

completion of the minimum eligibility period, if successful, would be

promoted with effect from the date of completion of the minimum

period of eligibility. However, if the candidate applies at a later date,

upon becoming successful, the promotion would be effected from the

date of the application.

January 17, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati

WP-12071-2024-06.01.26.doc

32. This resolution also made it clear that the advancement to the

higher grade pay scales could be effected on the basis of personal

appraisal and confidential report of the last five-years in accordance

with Government of Maharashtra guidelines for governing promotion to

various posts.

Supreme Court Judgments

High Court Judgments

Campus Buzz

Library

Legal Education

More

Circulars & Notices

Prof Laxman Shivaji Godse vs All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 504 Bom

Bombay High Court

Prof Laxman Shivaji Godse vs All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society ... on 17 January, 2026

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

Prof Laxman Shivaji Godse vs All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society ...2026 Latest Caselaw 504 Bom

Bombay High Court

Prof Laxman Shivaji Godse vs All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society ... on 17 January, 2026

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

Prof Laxman Shivaji Godse vs All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Society ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 504 Bom