{"id":35425,"date":"2002-02-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-02-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002"},"modified":"2015-08-03T03:59:02","modified_gmt":"2015-08-02T22:29:02","slug":"vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002","title":{"rendered":"Vishwaprakash S\/O Laxman Sirsath … vs The State Of Maharashtra Through … on 15 February, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Vishwaprakash S\/O Laxman Sirsath … vs The State Of Maharashtra Through … on 15 February, 2002<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2002 (4) BomCR 664, (2002) 4 BOMLR 176, 2003 (2) MhLj 176<\/div>\n
Bench: C F Shah, S Counsel, A Tele<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the
\nPetitioners as well as in the connected group of
\npetitions, which have raised a common challenge to the
\nResolution of the Government of Maharashtra, issued on
\n18th October, 2001 and more particularly Clause 2 (E)
\nof the said resolution. The said clause reads as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
    “——————————————-\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
 2. By the above Resolution, the State Government
\nhas laid down that the Lecturers, who were appointed
\nbetween the period from 19th September, 1991 to 11th
\nDecember, 1999, and without possessing the
\nqualifications of NET\/SET, would be protected and they
\nare required to obtain the said qualifications by
\nDecember, 2003 or before and in case they failed to
\nacquire these requisite qualifications, within the said
\nperiod, they would be entitled for the pay scale of
\nRs.8000-13500 till their superannuation. In addition,
\nthey shall not be entitled for promotion, senior grade
\nor selection grade. Those who passed the NET\/SET
\nexamination, within the stipulated extended period,
\nwould be entitled for senior\/ selection grade from that
\ndate and their seniority will be also counted
\naccordingly. Such of those Lecturers, who were
\nemployed under the Government Colleges, their
\ncontinuation would be in consultation with the
\nMaharashtra State Public Service Commission. However,
\nit is stipulated in the said Government Resolution that
\nthose Lecturers who did not possess the NET\/SET
\nqualifications and have been appointed after 11th
\nDecember, 1999 shall not be given the benefit of
\nextended period to acquire the said qualifications and
\ntheir services are required tobe discontinued before
\nthe completion of the probationary period. The
\npetitioners are aggrieved by this clause of termination
\nof service while on probation.\n<\/p>\n
 3. It is submitted that the said clause is
\ndiscriminatory and, thus, violating the guarantee
\nprovided under Article 14 of the Constitution. The cut
\noff date viz. 11th December, 1999 is unreasonably
\nfixed and it has no nexus with the purpose sought tobe
\nachieved and, therefore, the decision of the cut off
\ndate is arbitrary. The principles of equality between
\nsimilarly placed Lecturers viz. all those who have not
\nacquired NET\/SET qualifications has been breached. In
\nany case, the Resolution dated 18th October, 2001 could
\nbe made operative prospectively after 18th October,
\n2001 and it cannot be made applicable to all the
\nLecturers who have been appointed prior to 18th
\nOctober, 2001. By referring to the earlier Government
\nResolution dated 13th June, 2000 it has been submitted
\nthat while adopting the regulations framed by the
\nUniversity Grants Commission (the Commission, for
\nshort) vide notification dated 4th April, 2000 the
\nState Government did not lay down such a clause
\nclassifying the similarly placed Lecturers in different
\ncategories. In para 7 of the said Resolution it was
\nstated that the rules framed by the Commission would be
\nmade applicable from 4th April, 2000 and, therefore,
\nany appointment, which was made prior to 4th of April,
\n2000 could not be disturbed on the ground of lack of
\nqualification. In addition, the rules framed by the
\nCommission vide notification dated 4th April, 2000, do
\nnot provide for any such clause of termination. A
\nGovernment Resolution could not be made applicable
\nretrospectively and it could be applicable only
\nprospectively i.e. from 18th October, 2001 and not
\neven prior to the said date, in view of the earlier
\nResolution dated 13th June, 2000 by which a legitimate
\nexpectation was created in the minds of those who were
\nappointed even after 4th April, 2000 that their
\nappointment may be regularised by following the
\nprocedure, as laid down by the Regulations framed by
\nthe Commission and, therefore, the impugned Resolution
\nalso violates the doctrine of legitimate expectations.
\nAll the petitioners have been selected by a duly
\nconstituted selection committee and against sanctioned
\npermanent posts. All of them meet the basic
\nqualifications and failure to acquire the additional
\nqualifications cannot be a justifiable reason to remove
\nthem from service or to declare them as ineligible to
\nhold the post they have appointed for. Some of the
\npetitioners belong to the reserved categories and they
\nhave been appointed pursuant to the directives of the
\nState Government to fill in the reserved category quota
\nby way of special drive. It is urged before us that
\nthe Government was required to consider the cases of
\nreserved category candidates on a different footing and
\nmore particularly in keeping with the spirit of Article
\n371(2)(C) of the Constitution. Elaborating this
\npoint, it has been submitted before us that adequate
\nfacilities for acquiring the NET\/ SET qualifications
\nare not available in the backward areas like the
\nMarathwada region and the State Government ought to
\nhave considered this prevailing reality while issuing
\nthe impugned Resolution. The State is required to give
\nspecial considerations to the prevailing inadequate
\nfacilities in the backward regions and, therefore, it
\nwould have been appropriate for the State Government to
\nextend the period for acquiring the qualifications on
\npar with those who have been appointed prior to 11th
\nDecember, 1999. In support of these submissions, the
\nlearned counsel have relied upon the following
\ndecisions:\n<\/p>\n
 (i) “Union of India and others V\/s Hindustan
\nDevelopment Corporation and others”\n<\/p>\n
 (ii) “Osmania University V\/s R. Madhavi and others”\n<\/p>\n
 [AIR 1998 A.P. 130]  <\/p>\n
 A strong reliance has been placed on a recent judgment
\nof the Calcutta High Court in the case of “Amiyakumar
\nGhosh V\/s State of West Bengal and others” [Writ
\nPetition No. 19293 (W) of 1999 with Writ Petition No.
\n12593 (W) of 2000].\n<\/p>\n
 The Petitioners also contend that the
\nregulations framed by the Commission are recommendatory
\nin nature and they do not have a statutory force. It
\nwas not necessary for the Government of Maharashtra to
\nfollow the said regulations as binding and, in any
\ncase, if a concession is given to one set of Lecturers,
\nby extending the period for acquiring the additional
\nqualifications, the State Government ought to have
\nextended the same benefit to all those who have been
\nappointed prior to 18th October, 2001.\n<\/p>\n
 4. To examine the merit of these submissions, we
\nhave to consider the status of the Commission and the
\nprovisions of the University Grants Commission Act,
\n1956 (the UGC Act, for short).\n<\/p>\n
 5. The UGC Act came to be enacted under the
\nprovisions of Entry 66 of List 1 of the 7th Schedule to
\nthe Constitution, which entitles the Parliament to
\nlegislate in respect of “coordination and determination
\nof standards in institutions of higher education or
\nresearch or in scientific and technical institutions”.
\nThe preamble of the UGC Act, which repeats the words of
\nEntry No. 66, reads:\n<\/p>\n
  “An Act to make provisions for the
\ncoordination and determination of standards
\nin Universities and for that purpose, to
\nestablish a University Grants Commission.”\n<\/p>\n
 The UGC Act has come into force from 5th February,
\n1956. Section 2 of the UGC Act deals with definitions
\nand the Central Government has established the
\nCommission under section 4 of the UGC Act. Section 12
\nis regarding the functions of the Commission and it
\nsays “it shall be the general duty of the commission to
\ntake in consultation with the Universities or other
\nbodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit
\nfor the promotion and coordination of university
\neducation and for the determination and maintenance of
\nstandards of teaching, examination and research in
\nuniversities, and for the purpose of performing its
\nfunctioning under this Act the commission may … …\n<\/p>\n
(d) recommend to any university the measures necessary
\nfor the improvement of university education and advice
\nthe University upon the action tobe taken for the
\npurpose of implementing such recommendations.”\n<\/p>\n
 6. Section 12A enables the commission to regulate
\nfees and it prohibits donations in certain cases.
\nSubsection (1) of the said section deals with the
\ndefinitions of certain terms and the term “regulations”
\nmeans regulations made under the UGC Act. Subsection
\n(4) provides that if, after making, in relation to a
\ncollege providing for a specified course of study, an
\ninquiry provided in the manner in the regulations and
\nafter giving such college a reasonable opportunity of
\nbeing heard, the commission is satisfied that such
\ncollege has contravened the provisions of subsection
\n(3), the commission may, with the previous approval of
\nthe Central Government, pass an order prohibiting such
\ncollege from presenting any students then undergoing
\nsuch course of study therein to any university for the
\naward of the qualification concerned. Subsection (7)
\nstates that the provisions of section 12A and the
\nRegulations for the purpose of the said section shall
\nhave effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
\ntherewith contained in any other law for the time being
\nin force. Section 12B states that no grant shall be
\ngiven by the Central Government, the commission or any
\nother organisation receiving any funds from the Central
\nGovernment, to a university which is established after
\nthe commencement of the University Grants Commission
\n(Amendment) Act, 1972 unless the commission has, after
\nsatisfying itself as to such matters as may be
\nprescribed, declare such university tobe fit for
\nreceiving such grant. Section 13 empowers the
\ncommission the right of inspection. Section 14 deals
\nwith the consequences of failure of universities to
\ncomply with the recommendations of the commission and
\nit states that if any university grants affiliation in
\nrespect of any course of study to any college referred
\nto in subsection (5) of section 12A in contravention of
\nthe provisions of that section and fails within a
\nreasonable time to comply with any recommendations made
\nby the commission under section 12 or 13 or contravenes
\nthe provisions of any rule made under clause (f) or
\nclause (g) of subsection (2) of section 25 or of any
\nregulation under clause (e) or clause (f) or clause (g)
\nof section 26, the commission, after taking into
\nconsideration the cause, if any, shown by the
\nuniversity for such failure or contravention, may
\nwithdraw from the university the grants proposed to be
\nmade out of the fund of the commission. As per section
\n20, in the discharge of its functions under the UGC Act
\nthe commission shall be guided by such directions on
\nquestions of policy relating to national purpose as may
\nbe given to it by the Central Government. Section 26
\ndeals with the powers to make regulations and clause\n<\/p>\n
(e) of subsection (1) thereto deals with the powers to
\nframe regulations defining the qualifications that
\nshould ordinarily be required of any person tobe
\nappointed to the teaching staff of the university and
\nunder clause (g), regulations can be framed for the
\nmaintenance of standards of work or facilities in the
\nuniversities. As per subsection (3) of section 26 the
\npower to make regulations conferred by the said section
\nexcept clause (i) and clause (j) of subsection (1),
\nshall include the power to give retrospective effect
\nfrom a date not earlier than the date of commencement
\nof the UGC Act, to the regulations or any of them but
\nno retrospective effect shall be given to any
\nregulation so as to prejudicially affect the interest
\nof any person to whom such regulation may be
\napplicable.\n<\/p>\n
 7. The commission framed the University Grants
\nCommission (Qualifications required of a person to be
\nappointed to the teaching staff of University and
\nInstitutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991 in
\nexercise of the powers conferred by section 26(1)(e)
\nread with section 14 of the UGC Act and they were
\nnotified on 19th September, 1991 in the Gazette of
\nIndia. They apply to every university established or
\nincorporated by or under the Central Act, Provincial
\nAct or any State Act. These regulations were framed on
\nthe basis of the recommendations of a committee
\nappointed under the chairmanship of Prof. R.C.Mehrotra
\n(Mehrotra Committee). The Mehrotra committee had
\nrecommended the following minimum qualifications for
\nappointment to the post of Lecturer:\n<\/p>\n
 (i) Qualifying at the national test conducted for
\nthe purpose by the UGC or any other agency
\napproved by the UGC.\n<\/p>\n
 (ii) Masters degree with atleast 55% marks or its
\nequivalent grade and good academic record.\n<\/p>\n
 (iii) The minimum qualifications mentioned above
\nshould not be relaxed even for candidates
\npossessing M.Phil., Ph.D. qualifications at
\nthe time of recruitment.\n<\/p>\n
 After examining the recommendations of the Mehrotra
\nCommittee as well as the commission, the Government of
\nIndia prepared a scheme for revision of pay scales of
\nteachers in the universities and colleges and other
\nmeasures of maintenance of standards in higher
\neducation and by letter dated 17th June, 1987 the
\nGovernment of India forwarded the said scheme to all
\nthe State Governments and the Union Territories with a
\nrequest to formulate detailed proposals for its
\nimplementations. The scheme was revised by the Central
\nGovernment in 1988. In 1989 a conference of
\nVice-Chancellors was held under the auspices of the
\ncommission and one of the major recommendations made in
\nthe said conference was “the national level test to
\ndetermine the eligibility for Lecturers be conducted,
\nwhen the State Government conducts such tests, while
\naccreditating them caution be exercised. … …”\n<\/p>\n
 Keeping these recommendations in mind the commission
\nframed the 1991 regulations superseding the earlier
\nregulations framed in 1982. In clause 2 of the 1991
\nregulations, qualifications for appointment to the
\nteaching posts were laid down in the following words:\n<\/p>\n
 (2) Qualifications: No person shall be appointed
\nto a teaching post in the University or in any
\nof the institutions, including constituent or
\naffiliated colleges which commenced under
\nclause (f) of section 2 of the University
\nGrants Act, 1956 or in any institution deemed
\ntobe a university under section 3 of the said
\nAct in any subject if he does not fulfill the
\nrequirements as to the qualifications for the
\nappropriate subject as provided in Schedule 1;
\nProvided that any relaxation in the
\nprescribed qualifications can only be made by a
\nuniversity in regard to the posts under it or
\nany of the institutions, including constituent
\nor affiliated colleges recognised under clause\n<\/p>\n
(f) of section 2 of the aforesaid Act or by any
\ninstitution deemed tobe a university under
\nsection 3 of the said Act, with the prior
\napproval of the University Grants Commission.
\nProvided further that these regulations
\nshall not be applicable to such cases where
\nselection through duly constituted selection
\ncommittees for making appointments to the
\nteaching posts have been made prior to the
\nenforcement of these regulations.\n<\/p>\n
The qualifications laid down in Schedule 1 of
\nthe 1991 regulations, framed by the commission for the
\npost of Lecturer were, as under:\n<\/p>\n
Good academic record with at least 55% marks or
\nan equivalent grade at Masters level in the
\nrelevant subject from an Indian University or
\nan equivalent degree from an foreign
\nuniversity.\n<\/p>\n
 Candidates, besides fulfilling the
\nabove qualifications, should have acquired the
\neligibility test for Lecturers conducted by the
\nUGC, CSIR or similar tests accredited by the
\nUGC.\n<\/p>\n
 8. The 1991 regulations were adopted by the
\nGovernment of Maharashtra vide Government Resolution
\ndated 8th January, 1991 on the basis of the
\nCommissions letter dated 30th January, 1990 and for
\nthe appointment of Lecturers in the university and
\ncolleges the following qualifications were laid down:
\nUniversity Lecturers:\n<\/p>\n
 (a) A doctorate degree or research of an equally
\nhigh standard;\n<\/p>\n
 (b) Good academic record with at least second class
\ni.e. in the seven point scale.\n<\/p>\n
 (c) Masters degree in a relevant subject from an
\nIndian University or an equivalent degree from
\na foreign university.\n<\/p>\n
 Having regard to the need for developing
\ninterdisciplining programs, the degrees in (a) and (b)
\nmay be in relevant subject.\n<\/p>\n
Collage Lecturers:\n<\/p>\n
 (a) An M.Phil. degree or a recognised degree
\nbeyond the Masters level or published work
\nindicating capacity of a candidate for
\nindependent research work. And  <\/p>\n
 (b) Good academic record with at least second class
\n(C in the seven point scale) Masters degree in
\na relevant subject from an Indian University or
\nequivalent degree from a foreign university.
\nProvided that if the selection
\ncommittee is of the view that the research work
\nof a candidate, as evident either from his
\nthesis or from his published work, is of a very
\nhigh standard it may relax any of the
\nqualifications prescribed in (b) above.\n<\/p>\n
 9. By a circular dated 10th February, 1993 the
\ncommission granted exemption from appearing in the
\neligibility tests to the following categories:\n<\/p>\n
 (a) All candidates who had passed UGC\/ CSIR\/ JRF
\nexamination.\n<\/p>\n
 (b) All candidates who were already awarded the
\nPh.D. degree.\n<\/p>\n
 (c) All candidates who were already awarded M.Phil.
\ndegree upto 31st March, 1991.\n<\/p>\n
 (d) All candidates who would submit their Ph.D.
\nthesis upto 31st December, 1993.\n<\/p>\n
 By a further circular dated 15th June, 1993, in respect
\nof candidates falling in category (c), exemption from
\nappearing in the eligibility test was extended to
\ncandidates who were awarded M.Phil degree up till 31st
\nDecember, 1992. By a notification dated 21st June,
\n1995, the 1991 regulations came tobe amended and the
\nfollowing proviso was added below the requirement
\nregarding clearing the eligibility test for appointment
\nto the post of Lecturer:\n<\/p>\n
  “Provided that candidates who have submitted
\nPh.D. thesis or passed the M.Phil.\n<\/p>\n
examination by 31st December, 1993, are
\nexempted from the eligibility tests for
\nLecturers conducted by UGC\/ CSIR or similar
\ntest accredited by the UGC.”\n<\/p>\n
 10. The Government of Maharashtra consequently
\nissued a Resolution dated 12th December, 1995 and
\nadopted these amended qualifications as well. Prior to
\nthe said resolution the State Government had issued
\nanother resolution dated 28th April, 1994 and followed
\nthe changes made by the commission by its circular
\ndated 10th February, 1993 as well as 15th June, 1993
\nregarding exemption of NET\/ SET examination in respect
\nof M.Phil and Ph.D. candidates. By the Resolution
\ndated 22nd December, 1995 the Government of Maharashtra
\nextended the date for acquiring the NET\/ SET
\nqualifications to 31st March, 1996 and laid down that
\nthose Lecturers who were appointed on or after 19th
\nSeptember, 1991 without passing the NET\/ SET
\nexamination or M. Phil. examination upto 31st
\nDecember, 1993 or not completed Ph.D. till the same
\ndate came to be governed by the qualifications as
\nprescribed by the commission and as amended in 1995
\nviz. passing the NET\/ SET examination. It further
\nspecifically stated that those appointees holding the
\nposts of Lecturer on account of non-availability of the
\nqualifying candidates shall be treated as adhoc and in
\nany case they would not be liable for removal from
\nservice only on account of not qualifying the NET\/ SET
\nexaminations. However, until the time they would pass
\nthe said examination, they would not be entitled for
\nthe benefit of annual increments and such annual
\nincrements would be released only after they passed the
\nexamination.\n<\/p>\n
 11. The amended regulations of 1995 alongwith the
\nregulations of 1991 came to be superseded by the
\nRegulations framed in 2000 by the Commission and they
\nare called the University Grants Commission (Minimum
\nQualifications Required For The Appointment and career
\nadvancement of Teachers in Universities and
\nInstitutions Affiliated to It) Regulations, 2000 (for
\nshort, the 2000 Regulations). These regulations have
\nbeen adopted by the Government of Maharashtra vide its
\nResolution dated 13th June, 2000, as observed herein
\nabove. The qualifications clause in the newly framed
\nregulations reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
 “2. Qualifications:\n<\/p>\n
No person shall be appointed to a teaching
\npost in the university or in any of the
\ninstitutions, including constituent or
\naffiliated colleges recognised under clause\n<\/p>\n
(f) of section 2 of the University Grants
\nCommission Act, 1956 or in an institution
\ndeemed tobe a university under section 3 of
\nthe said Act in a subject if he\/ she does
\nnot fulfill the requirements as per
\nqualifications for the appropriate subjects
\nas provided in the annexure.\n<\/p>\n
 Provided that any relaxation in the
\nprescribed qualifications can only be made
\nby the University Grants Commission in a
\nparticular subject in which NET is not being
\nconducted or enough number of candidates are
\nnot available with NET qualifications for a
\nspecified period only. (This relaxation, if
\nallowed, would be given based on sound
\njustification and would apply to affected
\nuniversities for that particular subject for
\nthe specified period. No individual
\napplications would be entertained).
\nProvided further that these regulations
\nshall not be applicable to such cases where
\nselection of the candidates having had the
\nthen requisite minimum qualification as were
\nexisting at that time through duly
\nconstituted selection committee for making
\nappointments to the teaching posts have been
\nmade prior to the enforcement of these
\nregulations.”\n<\/p>\n
 Thus, the first proviso of Regulation 2 of the 1991
\nregulations regarding qualifications was replaced by
\nthe amended proviso as set out hereinabove. Clause
\n1.5.3. of the annexure to the regulations pertains to
\nthe qualifications for the pose of Lecturer and it
\nreads, thus:\n<\/p>\n
 “Good academic record with at least 55% of
\nthe marks (or an equivalent grade) at
\nMasters degree level or an equivalent
\nqualification from an Indian or foreign
\nuniversity. Candidates, besides fulfilling
\nthe above qualifications should have cleared
\nNational Eligibility Test for Lecturers
\n(NET) conducted by UGC or similar tests
\naccredited by the UGC.\n<\/p>\n
 Note:- NET shall remain the compulsory
\nrequirement for appointment as
\nLecturer even for candidates
\nhaving Ph.D. degree. However,
\nthe candidates who have completed
\nM.Phil. degree or have submitted
\nPh.D. thesis in the concerned
\nsubject upto 31st December, 1993
\nare exempted from appearing in the
\nNET examinations.”\n<\/p>\n
 By Resolution dated 13th June, 2000 the Government of
\nMaharashtra adopted the 2000 Regulations and clause 7
\nof the said Government Resolution reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
    “——————————————-\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
 12. By the impugned Resolution dated 18th of
\nOctober, 2001 the State Government has granted some
\nconcessions\/ protection to those who have been
\nappointed during the period from 19th September, 1991
\nto 11th December, 1999 and such protections have been
\ndenied to those who have been appointed after 11th
\nDecember, 1999 and they face the eminent possibility of
\nremoval from service, as has been apprehended by the
\nPetitioners. The cut off date 11th December, 1999 has
\nits origin in the Government Resolution of the same
\ndate issued by the Stage Government for implementing
\nthe Fifth Pay Commission Recommendations with effect
\nfrom 1st January, 1996 and also the Government of India
\nScheme of 1998, which was circulated on 24th December,
\n1998. Clause 7 of the said Government Resolution is
\nregarding the recruitment and qualifications for the
\nteaching faculty. The qualifications for the post of
\nLecturer were stipulated as under:\n<\/p>\n
  “Good academic record with atleast 55% of
\nthe marks or an equivalent grade of (B) in
\nthe seven point scale with later grades
\nO,A,B,C,D,E & F at the Masters degree level
\nin the relevant subject from an Indian
\nUniversity or an equivalent degree from a
\nforeign university.\n<\/p>\n
Besides fulfilling the above
\nqualifications, candidates should have
\nacquired the eligibility test (NET) for
\nLecturers conducted by the UGC, CSIR or
\nsimilar test accredited by the UGC.”\n<\/p>\n
 A perusal of the Resolutions issued by the Government
\nof Maharashtra on 8th January, 1991, 11th December,
\n1999 and 13th of June, 2000 shows that the
\nqualifications as laid down by the Commission for the
\nappointment to the post of Lecturer have been in
\nverbatim followed except that in case of a Ph.D.
\nholder discretion was left with the universities
\nconcerned for granting exemption regarding NET\/ SET
\nexamination as is evident from clause 7 of the
\nResolution dated 11th December, 1999, which read as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
  “7. Recruitment and Qualifications.- The
\ndirect recruitment to the post of Lecturers,
\nReaders and Professors in the Universities
\nand Lecturers in Colleges shall be on the
\nbasis of merit through all-India
\nadvertisement and selections by the duly
\nconstituted Selection Committees to be set
\nup as prescribed in UGCs Notification,
\ndated 24th December, 1998 under the
\nStatutes\/ Ordinances of the concerned
\nUniversity. Such Committees should have a
\nminimum of three experts, the head of the
\nconcerned Department and the Principal of
\nthe concerned College (in case of selection
\nof college teachers).\n<\/p>\n
 Recruitment of Teachers in Government
\nColleges and Institutes of Sciences will be
\nregulated by respective recruitment rules
\nprescribed by the State Government in
\nconsultation with Maharashtra Public Service
\nCommission.\n<\/p>\n
 The minimum qualifications required for
\nthe post of Lecturers, Readers, Professors,
\nAssistant Directors of Physical Education,
\nDeputy Directors of Physical Education,
\nDirectors of Physical Education, Assistant
\nLibrarians, Deputy Librarians, Librarian,
\nand Registrars, will be those as prescribed
\nby the University Grants Commission &
\naccepted by State Government from time to
\ntime.\n<\/p>\n
 The minimum requirements of a good
\nacademic record, 55% of the marks at the
\nmasters level and qualifying in the
\nNational Eligibility Test, or an accredited
\ntest, shall remain for the appointment of
\nLecturers. It would be optional for the
\nUniversity to exempt Ph.D. holders from NET
\nor to require NET in their case either as
\ndesirable or essential qualifications for
\nappointment as Lecturers in the University
\nDepartments and Colleges. The minimum
\nrequirement of 55% should not be insisted
\nupon for Professors, Readers, Registrars,
\nLibrarians, Deputy Librarians, Directors of
\nPhysical Education, Deputy Director of
\nPhysical Education for the existing
\nincumbents who are already in the University
\nsystem. However, these marks should be
\ninsisted upon for those entering the system
\nfrom outside and those at the entry point of
\nLecturers, Assistant Librarians, Assistant
\nDirector of Physical Education.\n<\/p>\n
A relaxation of 5% may be provided,
\nfrom 55% to 50% of the marks, at the
\nmasters level for the SC\/ ST category.
\nA relaxation of 5% may be provided,
\nfrom 55% to 50% of the marks to the Ph.D.
\ndegree holders who have passed their
\nMasters degree prior to 19th September,
\n1991.\n<\/p>\n
 B in the 7 point scale with latter
\ngrades O, A, B, C, D, E & F shall be
\nregarded as equivalent of 55% wherever the
\ngrading system is followed.\n<\/p>\n
The Ph.D. shall continue to be a
\ncompulsory requirement for the designation
\nof Reader. However, for other categories,
\nlike those of Registrars, Librarians and
\nPhysical Education Directors, the Ph.D.
\nshould be a desirable and not an essential
\nqualification.”\n<\/p>\n
 However, that discretion left with the University has
\nnot been retained in the subsequent Government
\nResolution dated 13th of June, 2000 or the impugned
\nResolution and mainly because of the 2000 Regulations
\nframed by the Commission which have been adopted by the
\nState Government.\n<\/p>\n
 13. Regulation No. 2 of the 1991 Regulations
\nframed by the Commission opened with the words “no
\nperson shall be appointed to a teaching post in
\nuniversity or any of the institutions … … if he
\ndoes not fulfill the requirements as to the
\nqualifications for the appropriate subjects as provided
\nin Schedule 1. The Regulation, therefore, made a
\ndeclaration that unless a candidate possessed the
\nqualifications, as set out in Schedule 1 for the
\nconcerned post, viz. the Lecturer, his appointment
\nshall not be made. It created a bar against the
\nappointments of candidates not fulfilling the
\nrequirement of educational qualifications as set out in
\nSchedule 1 and in Schedule 1 the following
\nqualifications were formulated:\n<\/p>\n
 (a) good academic record with at least 55% marks
\n(or an equivalent grade) at Masters degree
\nlevel or an equivalent qualification for an
\nIndian or foreign university.\n<\/p>\n
 (b) Candidates, besides fulfilling the above
\nqualification, should have cleared National
\nEligibility Test for Lecturers (NET) conducted
\nby UGC or similar tests accredited by the UGC.\n<\/p>\n
 There is only a provision for relaxation in terms of
\nfirst proviso under Regulation 2. This proviso states
\nthat (a) relaxation in the prescribed qualifications
\ncould be made by university, (b) in regard to the post
\nunder it or any of the institutions, including
\nconstituent or affiliated colleges recognised under
\nclause (f) of section 2 of the UGC Act or by an
\ninstitution deemed tobe an university under section 3
\nof the said Act and (c) with the prior approval of the
\nCommission. The Delhi High Court, upon a writ petition
\nfiled by one Rajsingh had held that the 1991
\nRegulations were valid and mandatory and the university
\nwas obliged under law to comply therewith. This
\ndecision came tobe challenged by the University of
\nDelhi in Civil Appeal No. 1819 of 1994 which was
\ndecided by the Apex Court on 8th September, 1994 i.e.
\n“University of Delhi V\/s Raj Singh and others” . The Supreme Court, on analysing the
\nprovisions of the Delhi University Act, the UGC Act and
\nEntry No. 63 and 66 of List 1 of Schedule 7 of the
\nConstitution held that (a) the first proviso to clause
\n2 permitted regularisation in the prescribed
\nqualifications by university provided it is made with
\nthe prior approval of the UGC, (b) the second proviso
\nmade the application of the said regulations
\nprospective; (c) clause 3 of the Regulations provided
\nfor the consequences of the failure of the university
\nto comply with the recommendations made in clause 2 in
\nthe same terms as are set out in section 14 of the UGC
\nAct; (d) the provisions of clause 2 of the said
\nRegulations are, therefore, recommendatory in character
\nand it would be open to an university to comply with
\nthe provisions of clause 2 by employing as lecturer
\nonly such person who has fulfilled the requirement as
\nto qualifications for the appropriate subject provided
\nin the schedule to the said Regulations. It would be
\nopen, in specific cases, for the university to seek the
\nprior approval of the UGC to regularise these
\nrequirements. Yet again it would be open to the
\nuniversity not to comply with the provisions of clause
\n2 in which, in the even that it failed to satisfy the
\nUGC that it had done so for good cause, it would loose
\nits grants from the UGC. The said regulations do not
\nimpinge upon the power of the university to select its
\nteachers. The University may still select its
\nlecturers by written test and interview or either.
\nSuccessful candidates at the basic eligibility test
\nprescribed by the said Regulations are awarded no marks
\nor ranks and, therefore, all who have cleared it stand
\nat the same leave. There is, therefore, no element of
\nselection in the process. The Universitys autonomy is
\nnot entrenched upon by the said Regulations.\n<\/p>\n
 14. When the 2000 Regulations were framed by the
\nCommission on 4th April, 2000, clause 2 regarding the
\nqualifications remained the same and the first proviso
\nwas amended. The relaxation in the prescribed
\nqualifications was envisaged only in respect of
\nsubjects and in which NET is not being conducted or
\nenough number of candidates are not available with NET
\nqualifications for a specified period only. In
\naddition, these relaxations were required tobe made by
\nthe Commission alone and not by the University
\nconcerned as was the position in the earlier proviso
\nunder the said clause in the 1991 Regulations. It
\nfurther clarified that relaxation would be given based
\non sound justification and would apply to affected
\nUniversities for a particular subject for the specified
\nperiod and no individual applications would be
\nentertained. In Schedule I where the qualifications
\nare prescribed for the post of Lecturer a specific note
\nhas been added which clarified that though NET would
\nremain compulsory requirement for appointment of
\nLecturer even for the candidates having Ph.D. degree,
\nthe appointees with such qualifications or those who
\nhave completed M. Phil. degree up to 31st December,
\n1993 are exempted from appearing in the NET
\nexamination. Thus, the candidates who completed
\nM.Phil. degree or had submitted Ph.D.Thesis in the
\nconcerned subject upto 31st December, 1993 are alone
\nexempted from appearing in the NET examination and
\nthere is no other relaxation regarding qualifications
\nfor appointment to the post of Lecturer.\n<\/p>\n
 15. In the case of “University Grants Commission
\nV\/s Sadhana Chaudhary and others”  relating to grant of exemption in
\nqualifications, in the 1991 Regulations, were raised
\nand more particularly the requirement regarding
\nclearing the eligibility test for the post of Lecturers
\nor similar test accredited by the U.G.C. The exemption
\ngranted in favour of the M.Phil. or Ph.D. candidates,
\nakin to the one under the note, in Schedule I of the
\n2000 Regulations, was also a subject matter of
\nchallenge and the Supreme Court held that granting of
\nsuch exemption did not run contrary to the requirement
\nprescribed by the Commission in the Regulations of 1991
\nread with circular dated 10th February, 1993 and 15th
\nJune, 1993 which were applicable at the relevant time
\nand the amendment notification dated 21st June, 1995
\nwas also upheld.\n<\/p>\n
 16. The Regulations framed by the Commission are
\napplicable to the universities in the State if the
\nState Government has adopted them by way of a
\nGovernment Resolution. The 1991 Regulations as well as
\n2000 Regulations have been adopted by the State
\nGovernment, and the State Government did not give any
\nother relaxation in addition to the relaxations already
\nprovided under clause 2 of the 2000 Regulations. It
\nalso laid down that the 2000 Regulations were being
\nimplemented from 4th April, 2000. It was further
\nclarified that appointments made contrary to the
\nRegulations shall not be eligible to receive the grant
\nin aid from the State Government. The purport of this
\nGovernment Resolution was, therefore, clear and loud to
\nthe universities as well as to the colleges\/
\ninstitutions affiliated to them viz. you appoint the
\nteachers who meet the qualifications if you want to
\nreceive the grant in aid from the State Government,
\nlest you do not receive any grants. The relaxation,
\nwhich was given by the State Government in the earlier
\nGovernment Resolution dated 11th December, 1999, was
\nonly in respect of candidates with Ph.D.
\nqualifications i.e. on par with the 1991 Regulations
\namended in 1995. However, this was not repeated in the
\nGovernment Resolution dated 13th June, 2000.\n<\/p>\n
 Nevertheless, the 2000 Regulations, granting exemption
\nto the M.Phil. Degree holders as well as the Ph.D.
\ncandidates, are applicable in the State of Maharashtra
\nas well, even as at present. Besides this, there is no
\nother relaxation in terms of qualifications required
\nfor the post of Lecturer. These Regulations are,
\ntherefore, binding on the universities and their
\naffiliated colleges who are aided by the State
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
 17. Amongst the petitioners, before us, there is no
\ndoubt that none of them holds a Ph.D. degree or has
\nsubmitted thesis for Ph.D. prior to 31st December,
\n1993. None of them has completed the M.Phil. degree
\nand all of them do not possess the NET\/SET
\nqualifications, as at present. The Petitioners, who
\nare before us, could be categorised in the following
\ngroups:\n<\/p>\n
 (a) Appointees from 12th December, 1999 to 3rd
\nApril, 2000.\n<\/p>\n
 (b) Appointees from 4th April, 2000 to 12th June,
\n2000.\n<\/p>\n
 (c) Appointees from 13th June, 2000 to 18th
\nOctober, 2001.\n<\/p>\n
 18. When the appointments are made to the post of
\nLecturer they are initially appointed on probation for
\na period of two years which is required to be extended
\nfor a further period of one year under the concerned
\nuniversitys statutes. The Petitioners, who were
\nappointed on or after 11th December, 1999, were
\nadmittedly on probation as on 18th of October, 2001
\nwhen the impugned Resolution was issued by the State
\nGovernment. The first group of appointees (appointees
\nfrom 11th December, 1999 to 3rd April, 2000) were
\nadmittedly covered by the 1991 Regulations as amended
\nin 1995 by the Commission and which was amendment was
\nupheld by the Apex Court in the case of University
\nGrants Commission (supra). They do not possess the
\nqualifications prescribed in terms of clause 2 read
\nwith the Schedule annexed to the Regulations for the
\npost of Lecturer. The relaxation, which was
\ncontemplated in educational qualifications for
\nappointment to the post of Lecturers, was only in term
\nof the first proviso thereunder. There is nothing on
\nrecord to show, before us, that any of the universities
\nhad submitted a proposal for approval to the Commission
\nin respect of any post or in respect of any Petitioner.
\nIt was necessary in respect of such candidates that
\nbefore the approval was granted, by the concerned
\nuniversities, to such appointments, proposals were
\nmoved to the Commission for seeking approval in advance
\nin relaxation of qualifications, so long as the
\nuniversity is concerned wanted to remain within the
\npurview of the U.G.C. Act and the colleges concerned
\nwere desirous for grant-in-aid from the State
\nGovernment for these appointments. If the colleges\/
\ninstitutions concerned did not expect any grants from
\nthe State Government, they were free to appoint such
\nunqualified Lecturers and the Commission would not come
\nin their way as held by the Apex Court in the case of
\nUniversity of Delhi (supra). As long as the
\nuniversities concerned wanted tobe covered under the
\nprovisions of the U.G.C. Act and the colleges\/
\ninstitutions affiliated to these universities were
\nseeking grant-in-aid from the State Government, it was
\nimperative that they complied with the provisions of
\nthe 1991 Regulations for these appointments. The
\nappointments so made were per-se illegal inasmuch as
\nthey did not meet the educational qualifications and
\nthe relaxation clause was not complied with. The
\nqualifications prescribed vide resolution dated 11th
\nDecember, 1999 did not provide for any relaxation in
\nqualifications save and except those provided in the
\n1991 Regulations, as amended in 1995.\n<\/p>\n
 19. When the 2000 Regulations were framed by the
\nCommission, the qualifications were maintained and the
\nrelaxation clause was modified thereby vesting the full
\nauthority with the Commission alone and the role of the
\nUniversities concerned, for granting approval, was
\nremoved. These Regulations have been adopted by the
\nState Government by the Resolution dated 13th June,
\n2000 but retrospectively. The appointees in the second
\ngroup i.e. from 4th April, 2000 to 13th June, 2000
\nhave not brought on record whether any such proposals,
\nas contemplated under proviso 1 of clause 2, of these
\nRegulations were moved before the U.G.C. for the
\nrespective subjects. The amended Regulations have
\nconsidered the contingencies in different subjects and
\nmade a provision for granting relaxation on having been
\nsatisfied regarding the existence of such difficulties
\nor lack of infrastructure etc. and that too for a
\nlimited period. In subjects like Urdu, Pali etc.
\nwhere postgraduation studies are conducted by the Dr.
\nBabasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University at Aurangabad,
\nthere is a possibility that the necessary facilities
\nfor NET\/ SET examinations may not be available or the
\nnumber of candidates, who have successfully completed
\nthese qualifications, is inadequate. In such an
\neventuality, the Commission has provided for granting
\nrelaxation. The universities concerned are required to
\napproach the Commission making out a case for
\nrelaxation in the concerned subjects before the subject
\nappointments are approved by them and if the approvals
\nare granted, without complying with the requirements of
\nthe said proviso, obviously the appointments would be
\nillegal being contrary to the Regulations.\n<\/p>\n
 20. So far as the third group is concerned, we have
\nno hesitation in our mind to hold that these
\nappointments have been made in flagrant violation of
\nthe 2000 Regulations. The State Government virtually
\nissued a warning to the Universities, Colleges and\/ or
\nInstitutions not to appoint Lecturers who did not meet
\nthe qualifications, as prescribed by the Commission
\nvide resolution dated 13th June, 2000. When these
\nappointments were made the amended proviso to Clause 2
\nof the 2000 Regulations was known to every one
\nconcerned, including the appointees, and they ought to
\nbe aware that they were not qualified for these
\nappointments unless approval from the U.G.C. was
\nobtained in advance. In none of these three groups the
\nUniversities concerned have complied with the
\nrequirements of first proviso of clause 2 of the 1991
\nRegulations as well as 2000 Regulations and all the
\ncolleges\/ institutions where the petitioners are
\nworking, are aided institutions and, therefore, these
\nRegulations are binding on them.\n<\/p>\n
 21. Shri Shah, the learned senior counsel, who
\nspearheaded the arguments on behalf of all the
\nPetitioners, addressed us on the doctrine of promissory
\nestoppel. In the case of “Council of Civil Services
\nUnion V\/s Minister for the Civil Services” [(1984) 3
\nAll ER 935] such an issue arose for considerations and
\nthe Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
  “An aggrieved person was entitled to invoke
\njudicial review if he showed that a decision
\nof a public authority affected him by
\ndepriving him of some benefit or advantage
\nwhich in the past he had been permitted to
\nenjoy and which he could legitimately expect
\ntobe permitted to continue to enjoy either
\nuntil he was given reasons for its
\nwithdrawal and the opportunity to comment on
\nthose reasons or because he had received an
\nassurance that it would not be withdrawn
\nbefore he had been given the opportunity of
\nmaking representation against the
\nwithdrawal.”\n<\/p>\n
 Further, in Breen V\/s Amalgamated Engineering
\nUnion” [(1971) 2 Queens Bench Division 175] turning
\ndown the plea of promissory estoppel the Court
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
  “If a man seeks a privilege to which he has
\nno particular claim – such as appointment to
\nsome post or other – then he can be turned
\naway without a word. He need not be heard.
\nNo explanation need be given. … … ”\n<\/p>\n
 22. In the case of “Osmania University V\/s R.
\nMadhavi and others” [AIR 1998 A.P. 130], as relied
\nupon by the Petitioners, the Division Bench, while
\ndealing with the doctrine of legitimate expectations,
\nobserved, thus:\n<\/p>\n
  “6.Coming to the scope of judicial
\nreview when a challenge is made on the basis
\nof the doctrine of legitimate expectation,
\nafter referring to several judgments of the
\nCourts in England, the Supreme Court pointed
\nout, the doctrine of legitimate expectation
\ndoes not give scope to claim relief
\nstraightway from the administrative
\nauthorities as no crystallised right as such
\nis involved. The protection of such
\nlegitimate expectation does not require the
\nfulfillment of the expectation where an
\noverriding public interest requires
\notherwise. In other words where a persons
\nlegitimate expectation is not fulfilled by
\ntaking a particular decision then
\ndecision-maker should justify the denial of
\nsuch expectation by showing some overriding
\npublic interest. Therefore even if
\nsubstantive protection of such expectation
\nis contemplated that does not grant an
\nabsolute right to a particular person. It
\nsimply ensures the circumstances in which
\nexpectation may be denied or restricted. A
\ncase of legitimate expectation would arise
\nwhen a body by representation or by past
\npractice aroused expectation which it would
\nbe within its powers to fulfil. The
\nprotection is limited to that extent and a
\njudicial review can be within those limits.
\n… …”\n<\/p>\n
 By circular dated 28th April, 1994 relaxation
\nwas granted for NET\/ SET qualifications to those
\nlecturers who were appointed between the period from
\n27th February, 1989 to 31st March, 1990. Similarly,
\nthose who were appointed upto 19th September, 1991 and
\nhad possessed Masters degree with 55% or more marks
\nwere also exempted from acquiring the M.Phil. degree.
\nThe period for acquiring NET\/ SET qualifications was
\nalso extended upto 31st March, 1996 and failure to do
\nso, on the part of these appointees prior to 19th
\nSeptember, 1991, would result in termination of their
\nservices, was also made clear. However, this
\nrelaxation was subsequently withdrawn by Resolution
\ndated 22nd December, 1995 by the State Government and
\nthus the promise of date of extension upto 31st March,
\n1996 to acquire the NET\/ SET qualifications was finally
\nwithdrawn by the said Resolution. This decision of the
\nState Government was again reiterated and confirmed by
\nthe subsequent Resolution dated 11th December, 1999.
\nThe appointees on or after 12th December, 1999 can not
\nclaim that any promise was made by the State Government
\nto relax qualifications and more particularly the
\npassing of NET\/ SET examinations. None of them can,
\ntherefore, invoke the doctrine of legitimate
\nexpectations.\n<\/p>\n
 23. The scheme of the 1991 Regulations as well as the
\n2000 Regulations, as analysed by us, has not aroused
\nany expectations except the relaxation\/ concession
\nclause under the first proviso to clause 2 thereunder.
\nSimilarly, by the amendments carried out in 1995 the
\nCommission granted some concessions in respect of the
\ncandidates who possessed the M.Phil.\/ Ph.D.
\nqualifications or who had submitted their thesis before
\nthe cut off date. There were no promises of any
\nconcession or any relaxation in case of other
\ncandidates who did not have the qualifications of
\nM.Phil. or Ph.D., from passing the NET\/ SET
\nexamination and a discretion was vested with the
\nUniversity in the 1991 Regulations to approach the
\nCommission for approval in advance for obtaining
\napproval in respect of some posts. This concession was
\nsubsequently modified in the 2000 Regulations in
\nrespect of subjects but the Universities power to
\ngrant such relaxation is removed and the power is now
\nvested with the Commission. The Government of
\nMaharashtra, while adopting these Regulations by the
\nrespective resolutions, has not gone beyond the
\nRegulations and none of the Resolutions issued on 11th
\nDecember, 1999 and thereafter have contemplated any
\nconcessions to the candidates similarly placed to the
\nPetitioners. The State Government did not hold a
\npromise at any time after 11th December, 1999 to the
\neffect that the candidates not possessing the NET\/ SET
\nqualifications would be considered for appointment as
\nLecturers in the private aided colleges or in the
\ncolleges run by the State Government. The arguments
\nwere perhaps based on the premises that the State
\nGovernment had made some promise of concession but the
\nrecord does not support this presumption. We,
\ntherefore, hold that the doctrine of legitimate
\nexpectation is not applicable while deciding the
\nlegality of the impugned Resolution dated 18th October,
\n2001.\n<\/p>\n
 24. We shall now proceed to examine each of the
\nclauses of the Government Resolution dated 18th of
\nOctober, 2001. In the first clause the resolution
\ndated 22nd December, 1995 came tobe withdrawn.
\nIn the second clause it has been stated that
\nthe Lecturers, who did not possess the NET\/ SET
\nqualifications and who were appointed during the period
\nfrom 19th September, 1991 to 31st December, 1993 under
\nthe aided, unaided colleges\/ institutions through the
\nselection committee would not be discontinued. They
\nare, on the other hand, required to obtain these
\nqualifications latest by December, 2003. We do not
\nfind anything wrong with these conditions.\n<\/p>\n
    “——————————————-\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
——————————————–\n<\/p>\n
 It is the same doctrine of legitimate expectation which
\nperhaps weighed in the mind of the Government. With a
\nbenevolent intention the Government decided to extend
\nthis outer limit upto December, 2003 for all those who
\nhave been appointed upto 11th December, 1999 though
\nthese concessions were in fact withdrawn vide
\nResolution dated 22nd December, 1995. However, a
\nfinality to this withdrawal was given vide the
\nResolution dated 11th December, 1999 only, in view of
\nthe following preamble thereto.:\n<\/p>\n
  “Government of Maharashtra had approved
\nthe implementation of revised pay scales for
\nUniversity and College teachers with effect
\nfrom 1st January, 1986 vide Government
\nResolution, Education and Employment
\nDepartment No. NGC 1286\/(1224)\/UNI.4, dated
\n27th February, 1989. After appointment of
\nthe Fifth Pay Commission for Central
\nGovernment employees, the University Grants
\nCommission had appointed a Committee under
\nChairmanship of Prof. Rastogi to examine
\nthe present structure of emoluments and
\nconditions of service of University and
\nCollege teachers. After considering the
\nRastogi Committees Report, the University
\nGrants Commission submitted its
\nrecommendations to the Government of India.
\nAfter examination of this report, Government
\nof India evolved a scheme of pay revision
\nfor the University and College Teachers and
\nother measures for improvement of standards
\nin higher education. By their letter dated
\n27th July, 1998, and subsequent letters
\ndated 22nd September, 1998 and 6th November,
\n1998, the Government of India accepted and
\napproved the recommendations of UGC to
\nCentral Universities and Colleges
\nthereunder. Similarly, the Government of
\nIndia recommended to the state Government to
\nimplement this scheme in the State
\nUniversities and affiliated Colleges. The
\nquestion of implementing Government of
\nIndias scheme of revision of pay scales of
\nUniversity and College teachers and other
\nrelevant guidelines and notifications issued
\nby U.G.C. from time to time was under
\nconsideration of the State Government.
\nAfter careful consideration of the
\nGovernment of Indias Package Scheme, 1996
\nfor maintenance of standards in Higher
\nEducation, the State Government has now
\ndecided to implement the revised pay scales
\nand the terms and conditions of service as
\ndetailed below.”\n<\/p>\n
 25. The next sub clause of clause 2 viz. subclause\n<\/p>\n
(b) states that those lecturers who are not successful
\nin obtaining the NET\/ SET qualifications by December,
\n2003 will be continued in service till their retirement
\nand except the annual increment they shall not be
\nentitled for any other benefits like financial
\nbenefits, promotion, senior grade or selection grade.
\nIt further states that till their retirement they shall
\nbe continued in the pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,5000. We
\ncertainly find fault with this clause. When the
\nGovernment has adopted the Regulations as framed by the
\nCommission and if the Commission does not provide for
\nsuch a clause in its Regulations, the State Government
\ncannot deviate from the said Regulations if the
\nappointees upto 11th December, 1999 failed to obtain
\nthe NET\/ SET qualifications by December, 2003.
\nUndoubtedly they continued tobe unqualified to hold the
\npost of Lecturer and they can not be continued beyond
\nDecember, 2003. The concession granted by the State
\nGovernment in this clause is contrary to the
\nRegulations framed by the Commission. In case there
\nare institutions\/ universities who do not want to be
\ncovered under the U.G.C. Act, the position would be
\ndifferent but the Government Resolution dated 18th
\nOctober, 2001 is in respect of all those aided, unaided
\ncolleges\/ institutions covered under the U.G.C. Act.
\nThough education is a subject in the concurrent list
\ni.e. List III under the Seventh Schedule (Serial
\nNo.25), the State Governments power in that regard is
\nsubject to the provisions of Entry 63, 64, 65 and 66
\nand List-I under the said Schedule. The Government
\nadopted the 2000 Regulations framed by the Commission
\nin toto vide Government Resolution dated 13th June,
\n2000 and retrospectively from 4th April, 2000. Under
\nthese circumstances, the Governments decision of
\ngranting concession, as set out in clause 2 (b) of the
\nimpugned Government Resolution, cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
 26. The impugned clause i.e. clause 2 (e) in the
\nGovernment Resolution dated 18th of October, 2001,
\nstates that all the appointees to the post of Lecturer,
\nwhose appointments are after 11th December, 1999 (who
\nhave been classified in the three different groups, in
\nthis judgment) would not be eligible for the
\nconcessions granted in subclause (a) as well as (c) of
\nclause 2 and they are liable tobe removed from service
\nbefore the completion of their probationary period.
\nNone of the petitioners, who are before us, have been
\nconfirmed in service before the impugned Government
\nResolution was issued. The probationers do not have a
\nvested right of being confirmed in service and more so
\nwhen they do not meet the requirements of prescribed
\nqualifications for appointment to the post which they
\nhold. Vide Government Resolution dated 11th December,
\n1999 the State Government had made known its policy in
\nno uncertain words to all the concerned, including the
\nuniversities and colleges\/ institutions and stated that
\nthe minimum qualifications required for the post of
\nLecturer, Reader, Professor, Assistant Director of
\nPhysical Education, Deputy Director of Physical
\nEducation, Director of Physical Education, Assistant
\nLibrarian, Deputy Librarian, Librarian and Registrars
\nwould be those as prescribed by the Commission and
\naccepted by the State Government, from time to time.
\nThis resolution had also referred to the scheme
\nformulated by the Commission vide letter dated 24th
\nDecember, 1998 wherein the minimum qualifications were
\nstipulated for the post of Lecturer under clause 4.4.0.
\nThese qualifications were set out in the following
\nwords:\n<\/p>\n
 “Good academic record with at least 55% of
\nmarks or an equivalent grade of B in the 7
\npoint scale with latter grades O, A, B, C,
\nD, E & F at the Masters degree level in the
\nrelevant subject from an Indian University
\nor equivalent degree from a foreign
\nuniversity.\n<\/p>\n
 Besides fulfilling the above
\nqualifications, candidates should have
\ncleared the eligibility test (NET) for
\nlecturers conducted by the UGC, CSIR or
\nsimilar test accredited by the U.G.C.”\n<\/p>\n
 By the Resolution dated 11th December, 1999 the
\nscheme of 1998 framed by the U.G.C. was adopted and
\nfollowed in toto, including the qualifications for the
\npost of Lecturer. In view of this announcement of the
\nState policy the universities or colleges\/ institutions
\nwere not allowed to appoint candidates to the post of
\nLecturers who did not possess the NET qualifications or
\nits equivalent from 12th December, 1999 unless these
\nappointments were covered under the first proviso to
\nclause 2 of the 1991 Regulations. Even when the
\nGovernment issued its Resolution dated 13th of June,
\n2000, adopting the 2000 Regulations framed by the
\nCommission, there was no concession granted, except the
\nconcession in the first proviso to clause 2 therein
\nand, therefore, in respect of the appointments made
\nafter 13th June, 2000 also the universities and
\ncolleges\/ institutions were under an obligation to
\nensure that the candidates appointed to the post of
\nLecturer did possess the qualifications of NET\/ SET
\nunless the Commission had granted prior approval within
\nthe ambit of the first proviso to clause 2 of the 2000
\nRegulations. Same is the case in respect of those
\nappointees after 13th of June, 2000 till 18th of
\nOctober, 2001. None of the appointees in these three
\ngroups fulfill the eligibility conditions in respect of
\nthe qualifications and, therefore, they obviously stand
\nin the category of unqualified candidates or ineligible
\ncandidates.\n<\/p>\n
 Does it mean that every one of them is liable
\ntobe removed from service during the probationary
\nperiod or thereafter. This question cannot be answered
\nin general terms on the face of the relaxation granted
\nunder the first proviso to clause 2 of the 1991
\nRegulations as well as 2000 Regulations. It would be,
\ntherefore, necessary to examine each case under this
\nproviso and those who did not satisfy the requirements
\ntherein must obviously vacate the posts. We deem it
\nappropriate to give these clarification in view of the
\nlanguage of subclause (e) of clause 2 of the impugned
\nGovernment Resolution dated 18th October, 2001. It
\nwould be necessary for the concerned university or the
\ncollege\/ institution to ascertain whether the appointee
\nconcerned is covered by the benefit under the first
\nproviso to clause 2 of the 1991 Regulations or 2000
\nRegulations before taking the final decision of
\nretention or removal as the case may be. The State
\nGovernments decision impugned before us, cannot be
\nread in isolation and it must be read in conjunction
\nwith the 1991 as well as 2000 Regulations. A
\nparticular university or college\/ institution may
\njustifiably put up a case before the Commission
\nregarding non-availability of adequate facilities for
\nNET\/ SET examination and \/ or inadequate number of
\nqualified candidates in a particular subject and more
\nparticularly against the posts reserved. These
\nparameters\/ prevailing conditions could be examined by
\nthe Commission which is the final authority and the
\nCommission has retained the discretion for applying its
\nmind to all these ground realities and take appropriate
\ndecision of granting concession in favour of such
\nsubjects. This discretion of the UGC cannot be taken
\naway by the impugned Resolution which has tobe read as
\nan announcement of the Government policy tobe
\nimplemented on the lines of the Regulations framed by
\nthe Commission and not in isolation.\n<\/p>\n
 27. Shri Shah, the learned counsel for the
\nPetitioners, placed before us a mercy petition, by
\nrelying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the
\ncase of “H. C. Puttaswamy and others V\/s The Honble
\nChief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore and
\nothers”  and urged before us to hold
\nthat as a matter of one time concession all those
\nunqualified Lecturers, who are appointed prior to 13th
\nof June, 2000 or 18th of October, 2001, should be held
\ntobe eligible for the concessions which have been
\ngranted in favour of the candidates who have been
\nappointed on or before 11th December, 1999. We are
\nafraid, this cannot be done by us while exercising our
\npowers under Article 226 of the Constitution and more
\nso on the face of the Regulations framed by the
\nCommission which is a statutory body created under the
\nU.G.C. Act. The Regulations framed by the Commission
\nhave also provided some room for relaxation and the
\nconcerned universities\/ colleges\/ institutions can
\napproach the Commission for exercise of this power of
\nrelaxation in a given subject and for a specific
\nperiod. It is not for this Court to exercise such
\npowers. Shri Dhobale also argued on the special
\nprovisions set out by the Constitution under Article
\n371(2)(c) of the Constitution. He urged before us
\nthat concessions are required tobe continued in favour
\nof the candidates coming from backward regions as well
\nas backward classes. The language of Article 371 does
\nnot contemplate concessions or relaxations tobe granted
\nfor holding an academic post in technical education or
\nhigher education. The Commission is an apex body who
\nhas been bestowed with the powers to frame the
\nrequirement of qualifications and other eligibility
\nconditions and has accordingly framed the Regulations
\nunder which no relaxation is provided from the
\nrequirement of qualifications in respect of the
\ncandidates coming from either the backward regions or
\nfrom the backward classes except a relaxation of 5%
\n(from 55 to 50%) of the marks at the Masters level for
\nthe SC\/ ST category. The Commission has, thus,
\nconsidered the subject matter and granted some
\nrelaxation. The submissions for further concessions
\nmade by the learned counsel do not impress us.\n<\/p>\n
 28. We have also noted that the title of the 1991
\nRegulations framed by the Commission is different from
\nthe title of the 2000 Regulations. The earlier
\nRegulations were titled as “the University Grants
\nCommission (Qualifications required of a person tobe
\nappointed to the teaching staff of the University and
\ninstitutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991,
\nwhereas the later Regulations were titled as “the
\nUniversity Grants Commission (minimum qualifications
\nrequired for the appointment and Career Advancement of
\nteachers in Universities and institutions affiliated to
\nit) Regulations, 2000”. The emphasis, while framing
\nthe later Regulations, was for prescribing minimum
\nqualifications required for appointment and for the
\ncareer advancement of teachers in the universities and
\ninstitutions affiliated to it. There was no emphasis
\nin this regard in the 1991 Regulations. This
\ndeliberate change in the title of the Regulations also
\nspeaks about the intentions of the Commission to lay
\ndown a minimum qualifications for appointment and
\ninsisted that the teachers with these minimum
\nqualifications are only appointed, subject, however, to
\nthe provision of relaxation in specific cases.
\nIn the impugned Resolution dated 18th of
\nOctober, 2001 the State Government has, in clause 3,
\ncalled upon the Universities and affiliated colleges to
\nimplement the 2000 Regulations framed by the Commission
\nand not to appoint lecturers who do not meet the
\nqualifications set out in these Regulations. If
\nappointments are made of ineligible candidates the
\nState Government will not approve such appointments and
\ngrants will not be released in respect of them. The
\nState Government is, therefore, mindful of the legal
\nposition that the affiliated colleges and the
\nuniversities are bound by the Regulations framed by the
\nCommission so long as they desire to be governed by the
\nprovisions of the U.G.C. Act and receive grants from
\nthe State Government.\n<\/p>\n
 29. It is well established by a catena of judicial
\nenunciations that the academic standards as prescribed
\nby the respective nodal agencies created by an Act of
\nParliament\/ Legislature are tobe followed and judicial
\ninterference in such areas is uncalled for. The
\nCommission is a body created by the U.G.C. Act and in
\nexercise of its statutory powers has prescribed the
\nminimum qualifications for appointment to the post of
\nlecturers as well as other faculty members. It is not
\nsafe for this Court to sit in appeal over the decision
\nof the Commission in such matters. The academic
\nstandards, prescribed by the Commission, including the
\nminimum qualifications prescribed for appointment of
\nteaching staff, cannot be a subject matter of judicial
\nreview and this Court would not venture to grant any
\nrelaxation in such qualifications, more so when the
\nCommission itself has retained powers of relaxations in
\nthe given cases and for a specific period. The State
\nGovernment, by the impugned Resolution, has only
\nannounced its determination to implement the 2000
\nRegulations meticulously and also ensured that all the
\ncolleges\/ institutions receiving grants, follow the
\nsame, failing which the approvals to such appointments
\nwould not be granted and they would forfeit the grants
\navailable from the Government. It is for these reasons
\nwe do not agree with the view taken by the learned
\nSingle Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the case of
\n“Amiyakumar Ghosh” (supra).\n<\/p>\n
 30. In the result, the petition is rejected
\nsummarily subject to our observations that clause 2 (b)
\nof the impugned Government Resolution dated 18th
\nOctober, 2001 is unsustainable and the same is quashed
\nand set aside. We also hold that the cases of
\ncandidates appointed from 12th October, 1999 till 18th
\nOctober, 2001 are required tobe examined so as to
\nascertain the applicability of the first proviso to
\nclause 2 of the 1991 Regulations as well as 2000
\nRegulations before their services are sought to be
\nterminated by the respective universities and\/ or
\ncolleges\/ institutions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Vishwaprakash S\/O Laxman Sirsath … vs The State Of Maharashtra Through … on 15 February, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 (4) BomCR 664, (2002) 4 BOMLR 176, 2003 (2) MhLj 176 Bench: C F Shah, S Counsel, A Tele JUDGMENT 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35425","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVishwaprakash S\/O Laxman Sirsath ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 15 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vishwaprakash S\/O Laxman Sirsath ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 15 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-02T22:29:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"50 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vishwaprakash S\\\/O Laxman Sirsath … vs The State Of Maharashtra Through … on 15 February, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-02T22:29:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002\"},\"wordCount\":9972,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002\",\"name\":\"Vishwaprakash S\\\/O Laxman Sirsath ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 15 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-02T22:29:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vishwaprakash S\\\/O Laxman Sirsath … vs The State Of Maharashtra Through … on 15 February, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vishwaprakash S\/O Laxman Sirsath ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 15 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vishwaprakash S\/O Laxman Sirsath ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 15 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-02T22:29:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"50 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vishwaprakash S\/O Laxman Sirsath … vs The State Of Maharashtra Through … on 15 February, 2002","datePublished":"2002-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-02T22:29:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002"},"wordCount":9972,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002","name":"Vishwaprakash S\/O Laxman Sirsath ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 15 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-02T22:29:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishwaprakash-so-laxman-sirsath-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-on-15-february-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vishwaprakash S\/O Laxman Sirsath … vs The State Of Maharashtra Through … on 15 February, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35425","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=35425"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35425\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35425"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35425"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35425"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}