http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1386 of 2006

PETITIONER: State of Maharashtra                                                     

RESPONDENT: Shashikant S. Pujari & Ors.                                              

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/11/2006

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1387 OF 2006

S.B. SINHA, J :

       Shahaji Law College, Kolhapur, is affiliated to Shivaji 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  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.   

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  Clock Hour basis  (CHB) 1.8.1983 to 30.4.1984 Selection by LSC of College- University granted approval  1.5.1984 to 30.6.1984 61 days break in  service Break not condoned by  University Full Timer (though  workload of Part Timer  only) 1.7.1984 to 15.4.1985 Selection by LSC of College  and approval by University. 16.4.1985 to 15.7.1985 91 days break in  service

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

Not condoned by University  Full Timer (though  workload of Part Timer  only) 16.7.1985 to  30.10.1985 Selection by LSC of College  and approval by University 1.11.1985 to 30.8.1986 295 days break in  service Not condoned by University. Part Timer 1.9.1986 to 15.4.1987 Selection by LSC of College  but no approval from  University. 16.4.1987 to 30.6.1987 76 days break in  service Not condoned by University Part Timer 1.7.1987 to 30.6.1992 Selection by LSC of College  but no approval from  University. 1.7.1992 to 31.10.1992 115 days break in  service. Not condoned by University. Part Timer 1.11.1992 to  31.1.1993 Selection by LSC of College  but no approval from  University. 1.2.1993 to 19.6.1995 2 years and 139 days  break in service.

During this period  one Mr  R.A. Patil  was appointed by  University Selection  Committee on Clock  Hour Basis. Not condoned by University. Part Timer 20.6.1995 to till date Selection by LSC of College  but no approval from  University.                                                                                           "                  Qualifications for college lecturers were set out in a G.R. dated  31.01.1983, which is in the following terms :

"College Lecturers :

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

Master’s level or published work indicating the  capacity of a candidate for independent research  work.

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 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 of his  appointment failing which he will not be able to earn  future increments till 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.

       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 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

       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 Politics.   Following Selection Committee members were present  for the said meeting :

Designation Name Signature 1 President, Council of Education Kolhapur Shri Ratanapppa- nna Kumbhar   Sd/- 2 Vice Chancellor, Nominee Shri P.R.  Mundragi   Sd/-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

3 University Subject Expert Dr. K.K.  Kavalekar    Sd/- 4 Representative of  Joint Director for Higher Education Absent

5 Principal of the  College Prin. D.B.  Kurane   Sd/-

To appoint part time teacher in Politics the Committee  interviewed candidates and selected following candidates  preferentially :

               1.      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. Degree in six years.  There exists a controversy as to whether the  University had approved the same or not.   Indisputably, he obtained a M.  Phil. Degree on 26.01.1986 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.   

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

"Lecturer

(a)     ARTS, SCIENCES, SOCIAL SCIENCES,  COMMERCE, 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.  

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, inter alia, stating :

"The University Grants Commission, vide its letter  No.1-11/87 (CPF/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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

lecturer in University/College only is as follows if :

a)      He possesses a Good Academic Record with at  least 55% marks or a equivalent grade at Master’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.

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  fulfill the above revised prescribed qualifications.  The  Commission has examined the matter and it has been  decided that the revised 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 be considered eligible for applying to the post of  lecturer in other College or University."  

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 :

"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."                             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 1983-84.  A  communication to that effect is said to have been made on 04.01.2001.  

       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 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  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

considering the other matters, the report of the committee  appointed 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 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 not bear the required eligibility for  the post of teacher hence he should not be given  approval as a teacher."

         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  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 has been urged on behalf of the  Petitioner has to be accepted and the Petitioner is entitled  to the conferment of the status of a full-time 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\005"       

       Whereas the State of Maharashtra  preferred a special leave petition   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 1999 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. 1387 of 2006) is accepted, the College will  have to bear the same.

       The State, inter alia, contends that :

(i)     No approval having been given after 31.10.1985 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 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  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

to the educational qualifications laid down by UGC in 1991.   (iv)    The impugned judgment is not sustainable in view  of Section  26(1)(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)  Regulation, 1991",  no person shall be appointed to a teaching post in  affiliated college of any recognized University, if he does not fulfill  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 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 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 :

(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 the 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 as he  became entitled thereto from 1984; (iii)   Respondent being covered by G.R. dated 31.01.1983, 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 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/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 from  the resolution of the Management Council resolution dated  30.10.2000 granting approval of full time with effect from 1983-84  and the letter of the University informing the College dated  04.01.2001.  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.1   be appointed as a full-time lecturer in Political Science with 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  later.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

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  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.

       Section 14 of the Act reads as under : "14. Consequences of failure of Universities to comply  with recommendations of the Commission.\027 If any University [grants affiliation in respect of any  course of study 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) or (f) 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."

       Section 26(1)(e) reads as under :  

"26. Power to make regulations.\027 (1) The Commission [may, by notification in the Official  Gazette, make regulations] consistent with this Act and  the rules made thereunder,\027                 \005            \005            \005                      (e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be  required of any person to be appointed to the teaching  staff of the University having regard to the branch of  education in which he is expected to give instructions;"

       The colleges affiliated to University are bound by the Regulations.    The Regulations have force of law.   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  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 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 of each candidate in accordance with  the qualifications advertised, and recommend to the  Vice-Chancellor the names arranged in order of 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 of the Vice-Chancellor.    

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

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.

Such appointment shall be strictly according to the  order of merit 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 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."

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  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 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 of the  condition regarding consistently good record and B+ at  the Master’s 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 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  view of the decision 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-1177/129387/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  this Government Resolution shall be applicable as a  condition precedent to the teachers becoming eligible

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

for the revised scales.

2.  Orders contained in Government Resolution dated  25.10.1977 mentioned above should be treated as  modified to the extent indicated in para 1 above.

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 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 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  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  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  marks obtained by Respondent in Master’s Degree was available to him, as  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 :

               "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 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 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

       b.      No break out of these six breaks should be more  than the period 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  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 writ petition, in our opinion, cannot be  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.

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 on 30.10.2000 cannot be faulted.  Condonation  of breaks in his  service was also imperative 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 of Prof. S.S. Pujari as a full time  teacher a number of times from 1983-84 onwards, but the  approval was refused by the University Authorities on  the ground that he does not fulfil the required educational  qualifications (University letter No.5980 dated  05.09.1985 No.11228 dated 10th May 1996, No.12929  dated 3rd January 1998, letter from Joint Director of  Higher Education, Kolhapur letter No. 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 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 (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."                                                 [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.

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

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 Others \026  (2004) 7 SCC 112; Mahendra L Jain and Others v. Indore Development  Authority and Ors.  (2005) 1 SCC 639; National Fertilizers Ltd. and Others  v. Somvir Singh  (2006) 5 SCC 493; and Surendra Prasad Tiwari v. Uttar  Pradesh Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & Others (2006) 9 SCALE  101].  

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  accordingly. However, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of  the Constitution of India, we direct that no recovery of any amount paid to  him, shall be made. Civil Appeal No.1386 of 2006 filed by the State of  Maharashtra, therefore, is allowed and Civil Appeal No. 1387 filed by  Respondent herein is dismissed.  No costs.