Bombay High Court: In a case wherein the petitioner, worked as a Probationer in Mumba Devi Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalay (‘the College’) for nearly 7 years as she did not receive a confirmation letter after her probation of two years was completed, the Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge* and Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ., opined that the manner in which the petitioner was treated amounted to exploitation, and it had shocked judicial conscience of this Court. The Court, after confirming the petitioner’s appointment, held that the petitioner was entitled to five increments and normal scale promotions, as per Rule 19.1 of the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018 (‘the 2018 Regulations’). The Court, after noting that the College was founded with the blessings of Mahatma Gandhi, opined that if the College was to function being inspired by the teachings of the ‘Mahatma’, then it must treat its every employee fairly and without any exploitation.
The petitioner, on 18-4-2018, was issued with the appointment order as a Probationer for a period of two years and on 20-6-2018, she joined as an Assistant Professor in English in the Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan’s Mumba Devi Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalay. On 20-4-2020, she completed her probation and thereafter, she addressed emails dated 17-4-2021, 3-10-2021, and 23-10-2021 to the Management for issuance of a confirmation order.
The Principal In-charge of the College addressed a letter dated 27-10-2021 to the petitioner to submit a hard copy of the representation duly signed by her, to the Chairman, Managing Committee, Mumbadevi Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalay for necessary action, thus, the petitioner issued a letter dated 30-10-2021 duly complying with the instructions. The Principal, addressed a communication dated 4-12-2021 to the Professor praying for guidance/instructions and by a communication dated 5-12-2021 via email, the Professor stated that the confirmation letter might be issued to the petitioner. However, nothing progressed, thus, the petitioner addressed two more letters to the Professor praying for issuance of a confirmation letter.
The petitioner submitted that the appointment order or the service conditions did not provide for an extension of the probation period and there was no communication to her by the Management that her services were deficient or that she was not suitable for the organization. Further, it was submitted that the minimum period of probation of a teacher prescribed by the UGC was one year and extendable by a maximum period of one more year, in case the performance was unsatisfactory but in the present case, the appointment order of the petitioner began with the period of probation being fixed at two years.
Further, it was submitted that Clause 11.3 of the 2018 Regulations caste an obligation on the part of the institution concerned to issue an order of confirmation to the incumbent within 45 days of completion of the probation period after following the due process of verification of satisfactory performance. It was stated that presently, the petitioner had been working as a Probationer for a period of 6 years and 10 months.
The Court opined that the petitioner, a lady teacher, was made to work as a Probationer for nearly 7 years, had shocked the judicial conscience of this Court. The Court stated that a teacher could not be treated this way and the manner in which she was treated amounted to exploitation. The Court allowed the writ petition and held that since the petitioner was a Ph.D. on the date when she joined employment, thus, she would be entitled to five increments and normal scale promotions, in view of the order of confirmation as directed by this Court, as per Rule 19.1 of the 2018 Regulations.
The Court took note of the fact that on the letterhead of the College, it was mentioned that the College was “founded with the blessings of Mahatma Gandhi”. The Court opined that there was no debate that Mahatma Gandhi was the father of the nation and if this college was to function, inspired by the teachings of the ‘Mahatma’, then every employee should be treated fairly and there ought not to be any exploitation.
[Reshu Singh v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 1238 of 2024, decided on 6-5-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate with Aseem Naphade, Arsh Misra, Khushboo Agarwal, Ruchika and Mrunmayi for the Petitioner.
For the Respondents: Niranjan Shimpi with Shehnaz V. Bharucha for Respondents 1 and 2 (UOI); Vivek Khemka for Respondents 3 and 4-Management/Employer.