Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-AUG:18971-DB
( 1 ) pil-26-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Dist. Jalgaon
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.26 OF 2024
Lalchand Avachit Patil,
Age: 71 years, Occupation: Nil – retired as Principal,
Pratap College, Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.
R/o 12, Siddhant, Saraswati Colony, Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon – 425 401.
…..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Principal Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Director of Higher Education,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune 411 001
3. The Additional Chief Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
4. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Finance Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
5. The University Grants Commission,
Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg,
New Delhi 110 002,
Through its Secretary.
6. The Advocate General of the State of Maharashtra,
High Court Extension Building,
High Court premises,
For, Mumbai.
…..RESPONDENTS
( 2 ) pil-26-2024.odt
____________________________________________________________________
Mr. Ajay Shantaram Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no.5.
Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for respondents-State
____________________________________________________________________
CORAM
: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
TH
DATE
: 24 APRIL, 2026
JUDGMENT :- (Per Ajit B. Kadethankar J.)
. Rule. By consent of the parties, we have heard this Public Interest
Litigation for final disposal. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. The Petitioner has presented Public Interest Litigation with following
prayers:
“(A) This Public Interest Litigation may kindly be allowed;
(B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct respondents to evolve
a mechanism for selection of Senior College Teachers in aided
institutions run by Private managements/NGOs, aiming at ‘merit based
selection’ so also utmost transparency in the selection process, which
should culminating eliminating the vices in the existing selection
process.
(C) The respondents may kindly be directed to a committee of experts
and / or academicians for the purpose of evolving transparent and merit
based selection of the Senior College Teachers in the State.
(D) Any other suitable and equitable relief, to which the petitioner is
found entitled to and this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may kindly be
granted.”
3. Mr. Ajay Deshpande, learned advocate for the Petitioner urges that the
State Government introduced Shalarth System for implementing uniform
policy and transparency in appointments in the private schools in the State.
( 3 ) pil-26-2024.odt
He would submit that some common and uniform modality is also required to
be implemented in the appointments to be done in the private aided colleges
in the State. His thrust is on transparency to be maintained while making
appointments in the private aided colleges.
4. On our query, Mr. Deshpande agrees that the University Grants
Commission (“UGC” for the sake of brevity) is the apex body which has
overall control over the matters of appointment of teaching staff in the aided
private colleges. He agrees that the UGC has laid down a concrete mechanism
as regards to suitability of appointments corresponding to the Courses,
uniform methods to ensure sufficient and adequate transparency in the
appointments and such other parameters which would ensure model
appointment process. It is not disputed that in order to maintain maximum
transparency and uniform procedure in all senses in the appointment affairs in
the aided private colleges, the State machinery must implement and also
direct the concerned institutions to adhere to the UGC guidelines. However,
Mr. Deshpande submits that often the guidelines issued by UGC remain on
paper, and the directors of the private aided colleges overpower the selection
system.
5. Mr. Deshpande, Learned advocate on instructions of his client - the
Petitioner, who is personally present in the Court, submits that the State
Government must scrupulously adhere to the modality and the procedure laid
( 4 ) pil-26-2024.odt
down by the University Grants Commission while permitting appointments of
Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors in the aided private
colleges in the State. Demonstrating that the Petitioner has no personal
interest in the subject-matter of the Public Interest Litigation, Mr. Deshpande
urges to issue adequate directions to the State Government. He submits that
very soon there would be a selection procedure on mass level in the State to
fill up the vacancies in the private aided colleges in the State. The Petitioner is
keen to seek directions to the state government to implement a uniform and
transparent policy in making such appointments. He submits that there should
absolutely no or at the most, least interference by the managements in the
appointments to ensure that only meritorious candidates are appointed on the
vacancies.
6. Mr. V. M. Kagne, learned Assistant Government Pleader raises
preliminary objection on maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation. He
would submit the its trite law that a Public Interest Litigation is not
maintainable in the service matters. He relies upon paragraph no. 16 of the
Judgment and order passed by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. reported at
(2005) 1 SCC 590 which is reproduced as below:
“As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which
though titled as public interest litigations are in essence
something else. It is shocking to note that courts are flooded with
a large number of so-called public interest litigations where even
( 5 ) pil-26-2024.odt
a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public
interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest
litigation have been indicated by this Court in a large number of
cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts
are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time
which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilised for disposal of
genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra
Kumar Mishra this Court held that in service matters PILs should
not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service
matters continues unabated in the courts and strangely are
entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them
out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect
is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without
even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In
one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as
to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road
and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found
copies of the official documents. Apart from the sinister manner,
if any, of getting such copies, the real brain or force behind such
cases would get exposed to find out the truth and motive behind
the petition. Whenever such frivolous pleas, as noted, are taken
to explain possession, the court should do well not only to dismiss
the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be
desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and
dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in
the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not
have the approval of the courts”
7. We have cautiously heard the objection raised by the Learned Assistant
Government Pleader on maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation. We
can not forego the observations made by the Honorable Supreme Court
recently in the case titled as Pratap Singh Bist v. The Director, Directorate of
Education, Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors., (Diary No(S).41779/2023). In
Pratap Singh Bist case (supra), the Honorable Supreme Court observed that
maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation in Service law is a debatable
issue and is kept open for further consideration. The observations are thus:
( 6 ) pil-26-2024.odt
“4. In this view of the matter and having regard to the fact that
the respondent nos.5 to 17 have already served for almost 15
years, we are not inclined to entertain these special leave
petitions against their selection or appointment. However, the
second reason assigned by the High Court, namely, that “PIL is
not at all maintainable in service matters” in view of the decision
of this Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others vs. Jintendra
Kumar Mishra and Others, (1998) 7 SCC 273, is a debatable issue
and the said question of law is kept open, to be gone into an
appropriate case.”
8. On this backdrop, keeping the issue on maintainability open we called
upon the parties to address on the core issue of ‘necessity vis-à-vis provision’
for modality in appointment in the private aided colleges in the State.
9. During the course of hearing, we came across a Government Resolution
dated 11.02.2026 bearing No.HTDE-E-No.967350/2025-MHT-(HE-5)
[hereinafter referred as 2026 GR]. It appears that the State Govt. has now
formed decision to undertake recruitment on 5012 vacancies in the aided
private colleges falling under the Higher and Technical Directorate of the
State. Mr. Deshpande’s submission is that it’s the high time that the State
Government be directed to observe some modality in the selection procedure.
10. With the able assistance of the Learned advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. A. S. Deshpande, Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. V. M. Kagne,
and MR. B. B. Kulkarni, learned advocate representing the UGC through VC,
we have gone through the contents of the Government Resolution dated
11.02.2026.
( 7 ) pil-26-2024.odt
11. We find that the State Govt. has accorded sanction to fill up 5012
vacancies in the private aided colleges in the State. We also find that the
Government Resolution takes care of entire selection procedure. The “Dos and
Don’ts” are clearly mentioned in the Government Resolution. Pertinently, the
Government Resolution has laid down the modality and the parameters to be
followed by the selection machineries while making the appointments. We are
keen to see if the State Government has taken cognizance of the UGC
guidelines while proposing to fill up the vacancies in the private aided colleges
in the State. The search ends at clause No.2.4 of the 2026 GR.
12. For the sake of convenience, paragraph No.2.4 of the Government
Resolution dated 11.02.2026(supra) is reproduced as below:-
“२.४ विद्यापीठ अनुदान आयोगाने वेळोवेळी दिलेल्या मार्गदर्शक सूचना
तसेच शिक्षकीय पदांकरीता निहित केलेल्या निकषांचे पालन करूनच
अर्हताप्राप्त उमेदवारांमधून पदभरती प्रक्रिया पारदर्शकपणे राबवण्यात यावी.”
13. Considering the clause 2.4 (supra), we are of the opinion that the
Petitioner’s grievance stands redressed by the latest 2026 GR, particularly in
the light of its clause 2.4. Mr. Deshpande, in all fairness agrees that now the
State Govt. ‘at-last’ and ‘at-least’ has agreed that the uniform parameters of the
UGC shall be observed. However, he insists that the text of the Government
Resolution must not remain on paper, and that the Government must ensure
that the Government Resolution is followed by the concerned institutes,
universities and selection machineries meaningfully.
( 8 ) pil-26-2024.odt
14. Mr. Kagne, learned A.G.P. has strong objection to the apprehension
expressed by Mr. Deshpande. Mr. Kagne submits that there is no reason why
the State or the selection machineries would give goby to the instructions
incorporated in the Government Resolution dated 11.02.2026. He submits that
certainly the Government Resolution has to be followed by the concerned
institutes and the selection machineries.
15. As such, we find that the very grievance of the Petitioner is answered by
the Government Resolution dated 11.02.2026. Its made peremptory by the
State Government that in no case any appointment could be made in
exception to the UGC guidelines. Upon our query, the Petitioner could not
point out a single incidence after issuance of the Government Resolution
dated 11-02-2026 (supra), showing that an appointment is done in violation
of UGC guidelines. So far as ensuing appointments are concerned, there could
be no debate on adherence to the ‘2026 GR’. We notice that the Petitioner is
at pains in anticipation of disobedience by the College Managements to the
UGC guidelines. However, in the light of the crystal-clear mandate laid down
by the State Govt. in 2026 GR, we are of considered opinion Petitioner’s mere
anticipation does not warrant interference of this Court u/a 226 of the Indian
Constitution for any extended directions.
16. Hence in the light of above, recording the objection of the learned
Assistant Government Pleader on maintainability of the present Public Interest
Litigation; and also recording the statement on implementation of the
( 9 ) pil-26-2024.odt
Government Resolution dated 11.02.2026, we dispose of the Public Interest
Litigation.
17. We find that no further orders are needful to be passed in the subject-
matter in view of the aforesaid discussion at this juncture.
18. The Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of. Rule stands discharged
in above terms.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )
Rushikesh/2026