Holding

The respondent's appointment as a full‑time lecturer was invalid for lacking statutory qualification and University approval, and the High Court order granting regularisation was set aside.

Summary

Shashikant S. Pujari was appointed as a part‑time lecturer on a clock‑hour basis in 1983 and later served intermittently as a full‑time lecturer without the requisite approval of the University Selection Committee and without satisfying the qualifications prescribed under the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations, notably the 55% minimum in the Master's degree and the NET/SET requirement. The college and its managing committee attempted to regularise his position, but the University rejected his qualification and demanded repayment of salaries paid since June 1999. The High Court granted him full‑time status from June 1999, which the State of Maharashtra appealed. The Supreme Court held that the appointment was invalid because it did not comply with the statutory qualifications and approval procedures, set aside the High Court order, allowed the State's appeal, dismissed the respondent's appeal, and, exercising power under Article 142, directed that no recovery of any salary paid be made.

Issues considered

The validity of the respondent's appointment as a full‑time lecturer without University approval and without meeting UGC qualification requirements.
Whether the relaxations granted in earlier Government Resolutions (e.g., 31‑Jan‑1983, 22‑Dec‑1995) can be given retrospective effect to the respondent.
Whether the breaks in service were condoned and could be treated as continuous service for regularisation.
Whether the State can, under Article 142, prohibit recovery of salaries paid under an invalid appointment.

Legislation cited

University Grants Commission Act, 1956s. 14, s. 26(1)(e), s. 8(1)(a)

Subjects

University Grants Commission Actlecturer appointmentqualification requirementspart‑time lecturerfull‑time regularisationstatutory complianceArticle 142breaks in serviceselection committee

Judgment

A STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
v.
SHASHIKANT S. PUJARI AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 24, 2006

B [S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.]

Service Law:

University Grants Commission· Act, 1956:
c
s.26(J)(e) rlw ss. 14 and 8(J)(a)-Part-time Lecturer in Law College
under control of State Government-,-Later for some time worked as full
timer-Appointment not approved by University-College asking him to
refund the differential amount~laim for regularization by teacher-Held,
D Lecturer not possessing requisite educational qualification and his
appointment having not been made through Selection Committee of University
nor the appointment having been duly approved, he was not entitled to
regularization~tate, while undertaking to bear financial burden ofpayment
of salaries of teachers, is entitled to insist that appointments be made in
accordance with the statute-However, in exercise ofjurisdiction under Article
E 142, direction given not to make recovery of any amount paid~onstitution
of India, Article 142.

Respondent No.I was appointed as a part-time Lecturer, initially on
Clock Hour Basis with effect from 1.8.1983 in the one-man Department of
Political Science of respondent no.2-Law College which started 5 year Law
F Course in the year 1983-84. The Institute was under the control of the
appellant State Government. Respondent no. 1 was said to have worked from
1.7.1984 to 19.6.1995. During this period there were several breaks in his
service ranging from 61 days 2 years and 139 days. He was again selected by
the Local Selection Committee of the College, and from 20.6.1995 he was
G working as a part-timer. The respondent claimed for regularization stating
that as per the condition stipulated at the time of his appointment as full-time
lecturer for the years 1985 and 1986, he acquired M.Phil Degree within the
period specified. The Managing Committee of the College found him qualified
and by its resolution dated 31.10.2000, sent a communication to the
Management Council, which declined to accept the recommendation of the
H 4~
- STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SHASHIKANT S. PUJARI

Managing Committee and held that as respondent no.I did not fulfil the
491

A
required eligibility for the post he should not be given approval as a teacher.
Ultimately, the University opined that respondent no.1 was not qualified to be
full time teacher pursuant whereto respondent no.2 College asked him to
refund all amounts paid to him since June I999. Respondent no.1 filed a writ
petition before the High Court, wherein respondent no.2 College made a
statement that the post of full-time lecturer had fallen vacant from June I999. B
The High Court, inter alia, relying on the said statement held that respondent
no.I was entitled to the conferment of status of a full-time lecturer w.e.f. June
1999. Aggrieved, the State Government filed Civil Appeal No.1386 of2006
and respondent no.1 filed Civil Appeal No.1387 of2006 contending that he
was entitled to the benefit offull-time lecturer from I983 and not from June C
1999.

It was contended for the appellant-State Government that no approval
having been given to appointment of respondent no.1after31.10.1985, his
continuation thereafter was illegal; that there having been several breaks in
service of respondent no.1 and such breaks having not been condoned, the D
High Court erred in passing the impugned order; that though the Local
Selection Committee appointed respondent no.I again w.e.f. 20.6.1995, no
approval was granted by the University considering it a fresh appointment;
and that respondent no.I was not qualified according to the educational
qualifications laid down by the U.G.C. in 199I under Section 26(I)(e) read E
with Section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act, I956.

Allowing Civil Appeal No.1386 of2006 filed by the State Government
and dismissing Civil Appeal No. 1387 of2006 filed by Lecturerthe Court

HELD: 1.1. Respondent no. I was appointed on 'Clock Hour Basis' F
through the Local Selection Committee of respondent no.2-College.
Undisputedly, he was not appointed by a duly constituted University Selection
Committee. The purported relaxation granted in terms of the G.R. dated
31.1.1983, in regard to the qualifications of teachers was in relation to those
who were already in service in permanent position duly selected by the
University Selection Committee prior to revision of pay scales. It was, G
therefore, not applicable to the case of respondent no. 1. Prior approval,
moreover, of the State Government in terms of Section 8{l)(a) of the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956 was a pre-requisite. (503-C; 504-FJ

I.2. The relaxation of NET/SET examinations in terms of the GR dated
H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. -'
A 22.12.1995 was granted to the lecturers, who had got more than 55% marks
at Master's Degree; passed M. Phil. Examination before 31.12.1993;
submitted their Ph.D. thesis; and who were appointed through competent
proper Selection Committee constituted by the University. Admittedly,
respondent no.1 had obtained 51% marks in M.A. Thus no relaxation about
percentage of the marks obtained in Master's Degree was available to him,
B as he had not submitted his Ph.D. thesis. Besides, he was also not appointed
on permanent post by the University Selection Committee, and as such he
could not take any benefit of the circular letter dated 11.1.1996. Another
question which was relevant but had not been considered by the High Court
was that having regard to the breaks in service, which were not condoned by
C the University, he could have been appointed only as a freshly recruited
teacher. (504-G; 505-F]

2.1. At one point of time, the College and the University might have
committed mistake in treating him as a flill-time teacher, but such mistakes
could have been rectified, if they were apparent on the face of the records.
D The State while undertaking to bear the financial burden of payment of
salaries and other remunerations to teachers of a College, is entitled to insist
that all appointments must be in accordance with the Statute. [505-G; 507-A)

A. Umarani v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Ors., [2004) 7 SCC
112; Mahendra L Jain and Ors. v. Indore Development Authority and Ors.,
E (2005] 1 SCC 639; National Fertilizers Ltd. and Ors. v. Somvir Singh, (2006]
5 SCC 493 and Surendra Prasad Tiwari v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Parishad & Ors., (2006) 9 SCALE 101, relied on.

2.2. The order impugned in the writ petition, cannot be said to be wholly
F arbitrary and unreasonable so as to warrant interference by a superior Court.
The eligibility criteria cannot be relaxed unless there exists a specific
provision therefor. The High Court must be held to have committed an error
in arriving at the impugned decision. Respondent no. 1 was found unsuitable,
as being not possessed of the requisite qualifications. Keeping in view the
facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment cannot be
G sustained, and is set aside. However, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article
142 of the Constitution of India, it is directed that no recovery of any amount
paid to respondent no. 1, shall be made. (505-G-H; 507-CJ

CIVIL AP.PELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1386 of 2006.

H From the Judgment and Order dated 21-3-2003 of the High Court ol
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SHASHIKANT S. PUJARI [S.B. SINHA, J.] 493
Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 2184/2002. A
WITH

C.A. No. 1387 of2006.

V.N. Raghupathy and Ms. Aparna Bhat for the Appellant. B
Jyoti Mendiratta, Vishwajit Singh and Gaurav Agrawal for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J : Shahaji Law College, Kolhapur, is affiliated to Shivaji
c
University, Kolhapur. The institution is under the control of the Government
of Maharashtra. It started five year law course in the year 1983-84. The
department of Political Science is said to be one-man department.

Shashikant S. Pujari (Respondent No.1) was appointed as a part time D
lecturer. Allegedly, a teacher would be considered to be a full timer, if he has
a workload of 12 teaching periods per week subject to his making good the
shortfall by taking additional lectures. Respondent was appointed on 'Clock
Hour Basis' (CHB). He was selected through Local Selection Committee of the
College.
E
Following chart would show the nature of post, period of working and
process of selection. So far as the Respondent is concerned :
"Nature of Post Period of Working Selection through Local
Selection Committee of
College & whether
approved by University
F
Clock Hour basis 1.8.1983 to 30.4.1984 Selection by LSC of
(CHB) College-University
granted approval
1.5.1984 to 30.6.198 46 l days break in Break not condoned by
service University G
Full Timer (though l.7.1984 to 15.4.1985 Selection by LSC of College
workload of Part Timer and approval by University.
only)

16.4.1985 to 15.7.1985 91 days break in Not condoned by University
service H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A Full Timer (though 16.7.1985 to Selection by LSC of College
workload of Part Timer 30.10.1985 and approval by University
only)
1.11.1985 to 30.8.1986 295 days break in Not condoned by University.
service
Part Timer 1.9.1986 to 15.4.1987 Selection by LSC of College
B
but no approval from
University.
16.4.1987 to 30.6.1987 76 days break in Not condoned by University
service
Part Timer I. 7.1987 to 30.6.1992 Selection by LSC of College
c but no approval from
University.
I. 7.1992 to 31.10.1992 115 days break in Not condoned by University.
service.
Part Timer 1.11.1992 to Selection by LSC of College
D 31.1.1993 but no approval from
University.
1.2.1993 to 19.6.1995 2 years and 139 days Not condoned by University.
break in service.

During this period one
E Mr R.A. Patil was
appointed by University
Selection Committee on
Clock Hour Basis.
Part Timer 20.6.1995 to till date Selection by LSC of College
but no approval from
F University."

Qualifications for college lecturers were set out in a G.R. dated 31.01.1983,
wh!ch is in the following terms :

"College Lecturers :
G
a. good academic record with at least second class (C in the seven
point scale) Master's degree in relevant subject from an Indian
University or equivalent degree from a foreign university; and
b. an M. Phil degree or a recognized degree beyond the Master's ·,
H level or published work indicating the capacity of a candidate for
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SHASHIKANT S. PUJARI [S.B. SINHA, J.] 495
independent research work. A
Provided that if the Selection Committee is of the view that the
research work of a candidate as evident either from his published
work is of a very high standard, it may relax any of the
qualifications prescribed in (a) above.
Provided further that, if a candidate possessing the qualifications B
as at (b) above is not available or not considered suitable, the
college on the recommendation of the Selection Committee may
appoint a person possessing a consistently good academic record
on a condition that he will have to obtain an M. Phil degree or
a recognized degree beyond the master's level within eight years C
of his appointment failing which he will not be able to earn future
increments tin he obtains that degree or gives evidence of
equivalent published work of high standard."

It is stated at the Bar that a person is treated to be Second Class 'C'
who has obtained 55% of the marks. D
The question which arises for consideration is as to whether Respondent
satisfied the criteria of having a second class Master's Degree and, thus,
could have been considered for regular appointment. Respondent's services
were approved as a temporary teacher in 1983-84 by the Selection Committee
as he is said to have taught in four periods per week. Allegedly, he was taking E
twelve periods per week, break-up whereof is as under :

4 periods per week First Year LL.B. Class

8 periods per week Second Year LL.B. Class
F
The Selection Committee in its meeting held on 29.09.1986 adopted a
resolution, the relevant provisions whereof are as under :

"The University Selection Committee held its meeting on Sunday,
29th June, 1986 to appoint Lecturer at Shahaji Law College, Kolhapur,
in the premises of Shahaji Law College, Kolhapur in the subject of G
Politics. Following Selection Committee members were present for the
said meeting :
Designation Name Signature
1 President, Council Shri Ratanappanna Sd/-
of Education Kolhapur Kumbhar H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A 2 Vice Chancellor, Shri P.R. Mundragi Sci/-
Nominee
3 University Subject Dr. K.K. Kavalekar Sci/-

4
Expert
Representative of Absent
..
Joint Director for
B Higher Education
5 Principal of the College Prin. D.B. Kurane Sci/-

To appoint part time teacher in Politics the Committee interviewed
candidates and selected following candidates preferentially :
c I. Shri Pujari, Shashikant Shankarrao

2 Mrs. Patil Bharti Tukaram"

The College appointed Respondent as a full-time lecturer for two years
for 1985 and 1986 subject to the condition that he must acquire M. Phil.
D Degree in six years. There exists a controversy as tQ whether the University
had approved the same or not. Indisputably, he obtained a M. Phil. Degree
on 26.0l.1986 on the basis whereof he contended that he fulfilled the conditions
precedent for his appointment on a regular basis. According to Respondent,
even the University Selection Committee found him qualified.

E On or about 19.09.1991, the University Grants Commission revised the
qualifications in the following terms :

"Lecturer

(a) ARTS, SCIENCES, SOCIAL SCIENCES, COMMERCE,
F EDUCATION, PHYSICAL EDUCATION, FOREIGN LANGUAGES
AND LAW:

Good academic record with at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade
at Master's degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian
University or an equivalent degree from a foreign university.
G
Candidates besides fulfilling the above qualifications should have
cleared the eligibility test for Lecturers conducted by UGC, CSIR or
similar test accredited by the U.G.C."

However, the Government of Maharashtra issued a letter on 18.06.1994,
H inter a/ia, stating :
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SHASHIKANT S. PUJARI [S.B. SINHA, J.] 497

The University Grants Commission, vide its letter No. l-11/87 (CPF/ A
PS), dated 28th October, 1991, notified the revised minimum
qualifications required for the recruitment of teachers in Universities
& Colleges. The revised qualifications for appointment to the post of
lecturer in University/College only is as follows if :

(a) He possesses a Good Academic Record with at least 55% marks B
or a equivalent grade at Ma.ster's Degree Level in the relevant
subject and,
(b) He should have cleared the eligibility test for lecturership
conducted by the UGC/CSIR or a similar test accredited by the
University Grants Commission. c
It has been brought to the notice of the Commission that the
teachers appointed prior to revision of pay scales are not considered
eligible for post of lecturer in other College or University as they do
not fulfil the above revised prescribed qualifications. The Commission
has examined the matter and it has been decided that the revised D
qualifications are not applicable to the teachers who were in service
as Lecturers prior to revision of pay scales. The lecturers who were
in service prior to revision of pay scales and fulfilling the qualifications
prescribed & were in permanent position may e considered eligible
for applying to the post of lecturer in other College or University."
E
On or about 30.06.1997, a direction was issued by the University to
consider twelve periods per week as a relevant criterion for recruitment of a
full time lecturer.

The State Government also issued an order on 17 .03 .1998, inter alia,
stating : F
"While appointing lecturer at University and affiliated colleges
the work load is taken into account. The lecturer having 12 or more
period work load, will be appointed as a full time lecturer. The
educational qualifications & Eligibility norms are decided by University
Grants Commission they are applicable to full time & part time lecturers." G
Respondent is said to have been assigned duties to frame question
papers and examination of answer books. A purported approval was granted
to Respondent to work as full-time lecturer with effect from l 983-84. A
communication to that effect is said to have been made on 04.0 l.200 l.
H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A The Managing Committee allegedly found him qualified. By reason of
an order dated 22.10.2002, the. Management Council, however, declined to
accept the recommendations of the Managing Committee, opined that
Respondent was not qualified, stating :

"It is clarified in respect of item No.3 of the recommendation that
B the opinion has been given by the Dy. Registrar to implement the
decision of Management Council made on 30.10.2000. In this, there is
no contradiction. In this respect Shri S.S. Pujari has filed a writ petition
in the Hon'ble High Court at Mumbai for grant of approval to him as
a full time teacher since 1984-85. The Committee appointed by
Management Council has recommended to grant the approval to Shri
c Pujari as a full time teacher from June 1999. Shri Pujari has served from
1983, but for this there was no approval from the University, hence
it would be proper to take decision about the approval. Along with
this breaks in service of Shri Pujari has not been condoned. After
considering the other matters, the report of the committee appointed
D by Management Council is for consideration in respect of approval of
Shri S.S. Pujari.

RESOLUTION:

(A) The resolution of Management Council dated 30. 10.2000 giving
E full time approval to Shri Pujari is cancelled.
(B) The report submitted by Shri M.J. Mohite and Prin. P.R. Karanjikar
Enquiry Committee is taken note of.
(C) Shri Pujari does riot bear the required eligibility for the post of
teacher hence he should not be given approval as a teacher."
F
The University also opined that Respondent was not qualified to be a
full-time teacher pursuant whereto or in furtherance whereof, Respondent
No.2-College asked him to refund all amounts paid to him since June 1999.

A writ petition was filed by Respondent .before the High Court. A
G statement was made before the High Court on behalf of Respondent No.2-
College that the post of full-time lecturer on the basis of the norms set up
by the University and the State had fallen vacant from June 1999. Inter alia,
relying on or on the basis of the said statement, the High Court opined :

"We are, however, of the view that the alternate submission which
H has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner has to be accepted and the
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SHASHIKANT S. PUJARI [S.B. SINHA, J.] 499

Petitioner is entitled to the conferment of the status of a full-time A
Lecturer with effect from June, 1999. At the outset, it would be
worthwhile to reiterate that this was in fact, the plea of the First
Respondent-College. The plea found favour with the two member
Committee appointed by the University"

Whereas the State of Maharashtra preferred a special leave petition B
questioning the grant of relief, Respondent has preferred a petition for grant
of special leave contending that he was entitled to the benefit of a full-time
lecturer from 1983 and not from June 1999.

We may place on records that the Respondent No.2-College has not
preferred any special leave petition as it is of the view that whereas from June C
I 999 it is for the State Government to make reimbursements of payment
towards salaries, but in the event, the appeal preferred by Respondent (Civil
Appeal No. 1387of2006) is accepted, the College will have to bear the same.

The State, inter alia, contends that :
D
(i) No approval having been given after 31. l 0.1985 in regard to
appointment of Respondent by Shivaji University, his continuation
therein was illegal.
(ii) There having been several breaks in services of Respondent and
such breaks having not been condoned, the High Court erred in E
passing the impugned order, particularly in view of the fact that
even the University had not condoned the breaks during the
period from 01.02.1993 to 19.06.1995 i.e. for the period of two
years 139 days.
(iii) The Local Selection Committee although appointed Respondent F
again on 20.06.1995, but no approval therefor having been granted
by the University as it was considered to be a fresh appointment,
the question of his eligibility was required to be considered
having regard to the educational qualifications laid down by UGC
in 1991.
G
(iv) The impugned judgment is not sustainable in view of Section
26(l)(e) read with Section 14 of the University Grants Commission
Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act') and Regulation 2 of "the
Qualifications which required of a person to be appointed to the
teaching staff of a University and Institutions affiliated to it) H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A Regulation, 1991 ", no person shall be appointed to a teaching
post in affiliated college of any recognized University, if he does
not fulfil the required qualification specified in· the schedule-I,
which for a lecturer in Political Science is as under : ....
(a) good academic record with at least 55% marks in Master
B Degree; and

(b) candidate should have cleared eligibility test of Lecturer (NET
conducted by UGC or SET conducted by State Govt.

(v) Indisputably, Respondent having obtained 51 % marks in M.A.
and having cleared the said examination, was not eligible to
c continue as full-time lecturer since 19.09.1991.

(vi) Respondent having not fulfilled the requisite qualifications could
not have been directed to be appointed as a full-time teacher.

The contentions of Respondent, on the. other hand, are :
D (i) Having obtained a second class Master's Degree and having
been appointed on a specific condition which he had fulfilled, the
impugned order passed in tli'e writ petition was legal.
(ii) Respondent being a full-time lecturer from 1984 onwards, status
given to him as a full-time lecturer only from 1999 is wholly wrong
E as be became entitled thereto from 1984;
(iii) Respondent being covered by G.R. dated '· 31.0 l.1983, in terms
whereof the requirement was to have the minimum of 50% marks
in M.A., which he possessed, qualification of 55% marks in M,A.
and passing of NET/SET examinations could not have been given
F a retrospective effect.

(iv) G .R. dated 18.06.1994 must be read with G .R. dated 22.12.1995 and
the letter dated 21.03.1997 which clearly show that the teachers
appointed by Local Selection Committee prior to the pay revision
of 19.09.1991 were exempt from 55% qualifying marks and NET/
G SET examinations.
(v) The University having approved the recruitment of a person
cannot be permitted to resile therefrom as he had been granted
full-time status with effect from 1983-84.

(vi) The Managing Committee could not have taken a different view
H from the resolution of the Management Council resolution dated
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1·. SHASHIKANT S. PUJARI [S.B. SINHA, J.] 501

30. l 0.2000 granting approval of full time with effect from 1983-84 A
and the letter of the University informing the College dated
04.01.200 l. In any event, there was no basis for the Managing
Council to depart from its earlier resolution dated 30.10.2000.

(vii) Respondent No.2 itself having recommended that Respondent
No. I be appointed as a full-time lecturer in Political Science with B
effect from June, 1999, the State should not have filed this special
leave petition.

The fact of the matter as noticed hereinbefore is not much in dispute.
The core question, however, is as to whether G.R. dated 28.10.1991 could be
given a retrospective effect. We would deal with the said question, a little C
later.

We may at the outset, note that concededly Respondent obtained 51 %
marks in his Master's Degree.

The question with regard to retrospective effect of the said resolution D
will have to be answered having regard to the fact situation obtaining herein.
If prior to October 1991, Respondent was validly appointed, he could justifiably
contend that the 1991 Regulation could not have been given a retrospective
effect. With a view to examine the said question, we may notice the following
provisions of the Act.
E
Section 14 of the Act reads as under :

"14. Consequences of failure of Universities to comply with
recommendations of the Commission.

If any University [grants affiliation in respect of any course of study F
to any college referred to in sub-section (5) of section 12A in
contravention of the provision of that sub-section or] fails within a
reasonable time to comply with any recommendation made by the
Commission under section 12 or section 13, [or contravenes the
provisions of any rule made under clause (f) or clause (g) of sub-
section (2) of section 25, or of any regulation made under clause (e) G
or (t) or clause (g) of section 26,] the Commission, after taking into
consideration the cause, if any, shown by the University. [or such
failure or contravention,] may withhold from the University the grants
proposed to be made out of the Fund of the ·commission."
H
~·
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A Section 26(J)(e) reads as under:

"26. Power to make regulations.

(I) The Commission [may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make
regulations] consistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder,
B
(e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of
any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University
having re~ard to the branch of education in which he is expected to
give instructions;"
c
The colleges affiliated to University are bound by the Regulations. The
Regulations have force of Jaw. Terms and conditions of services of an
University Employee as also the employees of colleges affiliated to it are
governed by statutory regulations. Regulations in terms of the provisions of
D the Act were framed in 1991 known as "The University Grants Commission
(Qualification required of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of
a University and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulation, 1991". Regulation 2
provides for the essential qualifications.

Statute 195(1) of the Shivaji University provides for composition of duly
E constituted University Selection Committee for Teachers. Statutes 195(3)(d)
and 195(3)(e) read as under :

"(d) The Selection Committee shall .interview and adjudge the merits I-

of each candidate in accordance with the qualifications advertised,
and recommend to the Vice-Chancellor the names arranged in order of
F merit of the persons, if exceeding one, whom it recommends for
appointment to the posts advertised giving reasons for the order of
preference. If no person is selected, a report to that effect be made.
The Committee will have the right to recommend only one name if
others are not found suitable for recommending a panel. The
recommendations of the Committee shall be subject to the approval
G of the Vice-Chancellor.

(e) The Governing Body shall appoint from amongst the persons so
recommended and approved by the Vice-Chancellor the Principal or
the number of teachers required to fill in the posts advertised.

H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SHASHIKANT S. PUJARI [S.B. SINHA, J.] 503

Such appointment shall be strictly according to the order of merit A
prepared by the Selection Committee and approved by the Vice-
Chancellor.

Provided that, where the Governing Body proposes to make an
appointment otherwise in accordance with the order of merit arranged
by the Selection Committee, it shall record its reasons in writing and B
submit them to the Vice-Chancellor, who may approve the proposal or
return into the Governing Body for reconsideration. After
reconsideration, if the Governing Body desires to pursue its Original
Proposal, it shall refer the matter again to the Vice-Chancellor for his
decision which shall be final."
c
Respondent was appointed on 'Clock Hour Basis' through the Selection
Committee. There exists a dispute as to whether it is one-man department or
not. It is also in dispute as to whether the workload was divided or not.

It is not denied and disputed that prior to June 1999 there had been
workload of a full-time post of teacher. It is furthermore not in dispute that D
Respondent was not appointed by a duly constituted University Selection
Committee. The Government Resolution dated 31.01.1983 to which reliance
has been placed by Respondent reads as under :

"The qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission E
and accepted by the Government of India are applicable as a condition
precedent to the teachers becoming eligible for the revised scales
have, inter alia, been mentioned in para V of Government Resolution,
Education & Youth Services Department No. USG-1180/129387/XXXII
(Cell), dated 25th October, 1977. The question of relaxation 6f the
condition regarding consistently good record and B+ at the Master's F
degree precedent to the eligibility of the revised University Grants
Commission recommended scales was under consideration of the
Government of India for some time past. The Government of India,
Ministry of Education & Culture, New Delhi in their letter dated 4th
November, 1982 have since communicated that the question regarding G
relaxation of minimum qualifications has since been reviewed by them
and that the revised minimum qualifications recommended by the
University Grants Commission for teaching posts in Universities and
Colleges will continue to be operative as in the past. The University
Grants Commission has since revised the qualifications for the
University and College teachers suitably. In yiew of the decision H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SU?P. 9 S.C.R.

A taken by the Government of India, Government is pleased to direct in
partial modification of the orders contained in para V of Government
Resolution, Education & Youth Services Department No. USG-1177I
129387/XXXII (Cell), dated 25th October, 1977 that the revised
qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission and
accepted by the Government of India as shown in Appendix 'A' of
B this Government Resolution shall be applicable as a condition precedent
to the teachers becoming eligible for the revised scales.

2. Orders contained in Govenunent Resolution dated 25 .l 0 .l 977
mentioned above should be treated as modified to the extent indicated
in para l above.
c
3. The Universities should be requested to initiate action to amend the
existing statutes in the matter framed under the relevant provisions of
the respective Universities Acts of 1974 with a view to implementing
the scheme of revision of scales of pay of their own teachers as well
as of teachers in Colleges affiliated to them in the light of the provisions
D
contained in this Government Resolution."

On that date, Respondent was not in service. If on that date he was not
in service, the question of his being duly selected by the University Selection
Committee on permanent basis would not arise. He, furthermore, was. not even
E found suitable.

The purport relaxation granted in terms of the G.R. in regard to the
qualifications of the teacher was in relation to those who were already in
service in permanent position duly selected by the University Selection
Committee prior to revision of pay scales. It was, therefore, not applicable to
F the case of Respondent.

Prior approval, moreover, of the State Government in terms of Section
8(1)(a) of the Act was a pre-requisite.

The relaxation of NET/SET examinations in terms of the GR dated
G 22.12.1995 was granted to the lecturers, who had got more than 55% marks
at Master's Degree; passed M. Phil. Examination before 31.12.1993; submitted
their Ph.D. thesis; and who were appointed through competent proper Selection
Committee constituted by University.

It is in that view of the matter no relaxation about percentage of the
H
-- STATE OF MAHARASHTRA l'. SHASHIKANT S. PUJARI [S.B. SINHA, J.] 505

marks obtained by Respondent in Master's Degree was available to him, as A
he had not submitted his Ph.D. thesis. He, it will bear repetition to state, was
also not appointed on permanent post by the University Selection Committee.

We may also notice the Government Circular dated 11.01.1996, which is
in the following terms :
B
"While discussing the problems of teachers, MFCTO brought it
to the notice of the Government that, if between two full time services
of a teacher, there is a part time service, his full time services are not
considered in counting the total period of service. As a result while
giving him the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme, he is not given
the benefit of his former full time services. If the break between his C
two full time services is condoned and his services are treated as
continuous, he gets the benefit, due to him, after retirement. In order
to remove this discrepancy, the Government is issuing the order that
if the part time services occur or fall between two full time services,
such services should be treated as a technical break and subject to D
the following terms and conditions, the benefit of such services should
be given to the lecturers.

a. Between two full time services, maximum six breaks amounting to
the maximum period of two years should be considered as acceptable.

b. No break out of these six breaks should be more than the period
E
of one year."

Respondent could not take any benefit of the said circular letter also,
inter alia, for the reason that he had not been appointed by duly constituted
University Selection Committee. Another question which was relevant but F
had not been considered by the High Court was that having regard to the
breaks in service, he could have been appointed only as a freshly recruited
teacher. At one point of time, the College and the University might have
committed mistake in treating him as a full-time teacher, but such mistakes
could have been rectified, if they were apparent on the face of the records.
Moreover, the order impugned in the wrir petition, in our opinion, cannot be G
said to be wholly arbitrary and unreasonable so as to warrant interference by
a superior Court. The eligibility criteria cannot be relaxed unless there exists
a specific provision therefor. A person can avail the benefit of relaxation
notification only when he comes within the purview thereof and when he
satisfies the conditions specified therein. H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
-
A It has been contended that the University had not given any approval
as regards his appointment as part-time teacher in Political Science, as he did
not receive a copy therefor. If there had been no approval to his appointment
after 30.10.1985, the decision of the University Managing Council onJ0.10.2000
cannot be faulted. Condonation of breaks in his service was also imperative
B in nature which had not been given.

The Council of Education of the College by a communication dated
03.05.2000 stated:

"The Principal Shahaji Law College has sent proposal for approval
c of Prof. S.S. Pujari as a full time teacher a number oftimes from 1983-
84 onwards, but the approval was refused by the University
Authorities on the ground that he does not fulfil the required
educatfonal qualifications (University letter No.5980. dated 05.09.1985
No.l 1228 dated 10th May 1996, No.12929 dated 3rd January 1998,
letter from Joint Director of Higher Education, Kolhapur letter No.
D 10493 dated 25.06.1997). It clearly shows that, there was no default on
the part of the college. Hence, the question of payment of fine does
not arise. In these circumstances, the decision taken by the University
Authorities in respect of grant of approval to Prof. S.S. Pujari as a full
time'teacher (Political Science) since 1983-84 onwards is not correct
E and legal and hence is liable to be cancelled.

University authorities have taken the decision in connection with
the letter from Shahaji· Law College dated 23rd September 1999.
According to the above mentioned letter dated 4th January, 2001, we
are taking necessary steps to appoint Prof. Pujari as a full time teacher
F {Political Science) from June 1999 subject to the approval of the Joint
Director of Higher Education, Kolhapur. Under the circumstances, as
mentioned above, I request your honour to issue fresh order to that
effect. I am enclosing herewith some of the relevant zerox copies of
the letters received from University and Joint Director (H.E.), Kolhapur
for favour of information and early action."
G
[Emphasis supplied]

If that is so, the High Court must be held to have committed an error ··
in arriving at. the said decision. We may also notice that he was found
unsuitable, as being not possessed of the requisite qualifications.
H
- STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SHASHIKANT S. PUJARI [S.B. SINHA, J.]

Respondent might have been appointed by the College, but the State
507

A
while undertaking to bear the financial burden of payment of salaries and
other remunerations to teachers of a College are not bound thereby. It is
entitled to contend that all appointments must be in accordance with the
Statute. [See A. Umarani v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Ors., [2004]
7 SCC I I2; Mahendra L Jain and Ors. v. Indore Development Authority and
Ors., [2005] I SCC 639; National Fertilizers Ltd. and Ors. v. Somvir Singh, B
[2006] 5 SCC 493; and Surendra Prasad Tiwari v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Parishad & Ors., (2006) 9 SCALE IOI].

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside C
accordingly. However, in exercise ofour jurisdiction under Article I42 of the
Constitution of India, we direct that no recovery of any amount paid to him,
shall be made. Civil Appeal No.1386 of2006 filed by the State of Maharashtra,
therefore, is allowed and Civil Appeal No. 1387 filed by Respondent herein
is dismissed. No costs.
D
RP. C.A. No. 1386 of 2006 allowed and
C.A No. I387 of2006 dismissed.