STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus SHASHIKANT S. PUJARI AND ORS.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus SHASHIKANT S. PUJARI AND ORS.

Respondent was not entitled to regularization as full-time lecturer as he did not possess requisite qualifications, his appointment was not made by duly constituted University Selection Committee nor approved, and multiple breaks in service were not condoned. Statutory and regulatory requirements for qualification and appointment were not met.

Parties
Appellant: State of Maharashtra; Respondent No.1: Shashikant S. Pujari; Respondent No.2: Shahaji Law College, Kolhapur
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment After Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Civil Appeal No.1386 of 2006 allowed; Civil Appeal No.1387 of 2006 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Appointment of College Lecturers, University Grants Commission Regulations, Qualification Requirements for Regularization, Approval Procedure by University, Role of State Government in Appointment
Service Law Education Law Appointment of College Lecturers University Grants Commission Regulations Qualification Requirements for Regularization Approval Procedure by University Role of State Government in Appointment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Maharashtra

Appellant

Shashikant S. Pujari

Respondent No.1

Shahaji Law College, Kolhapur

Respondent No.2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment After Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was entitled to regularization as a full-time Lecturer despite not fulfilling eligibility criteria and breaks in service
  2. 2 Whether the appointment was duly approved by the University and made by competent Selection Committee
  3. 3 Whether relaxation to qualifications could be granted in respondent's case

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent was not entitled to regularization as full-time lecturer as he did not possess requisite qualifications, his appointment was not made by duly constituted University Selection Committee nor approved, and multiple breaks in service were not condoned. Statutory and regulatory requirements for qualification and appointment were not met.

Court Disposition

Civil Appeal No.1386 of 2006 allowed; Civil Appeal No.1387 of 2006 dismissed.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment of High Court set aside
  • No recovery of any amount paid to respondent shall be made (Article 142)