The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed a large batch of petitions filed by visiting lecturers seeking regularisation in government polytechnic colleges across Maharashtra. The bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Rajnish R. Vyas delivered the verdict after reserving it on September 30. The courtroom atmosphere felt a bit tense—even the advocates seemed to sense which way things were moving before the order was pronounced.
Background
The petitioners, many of whom have been teaching for anywhere from two to eleven years, argued that although they were appointed after interviews and advertisements, the State repeatedly used them like full-time faculty while paying hourly wages. They complained about setting exam papers, supervising labs, moderating answer sheets, arranging industrial visits—basically everything that permanent lecturers do.
Their counsel, Senior Advocate Sunil Manohar, insisted that the State was “acting unfairly” by refusing to regularise them despite years of uninterrupted work. He pointed to the earlier Sachin Dawale judgment, in which certain contractual lecturers were regularised, and also invoked principles from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dharamsingh.
The State, represented by AGP Harish Dangre, pushed back hard. He argued that these lecturers were appointed on an hourly, stop-gap basis, and that no regular recruitment through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) had ever taken place for these posts. According to him, allowing regularisation now would “violate the constitutional scheme” and open the door for backdoor entries.
Court’s Observations
The bench went point-by-point through the documents and found significant gaps. Many petitioners had not submitted basic proof such as:
- copies of advertisements for their appointments
- details of whether a proper selection committee existed
- appointment orders showing sanctioned posts
- evidence of continuous service without breaks
The judges repeatedly emphasised that visiting lecturers were hired on clock-hour basis, not against sanctioned full-time posts. The court remarked bluntly that the petitioners “accepted the terms with open eyes.”
At one point, Justice Vyas, reading from the judgment, noted:
“Filing proformas of a few appointment orders would not be enough… each petitioner must independently establish due process of appointment.”
The bench also leaned heavily on the Supreme Court’s landmark Umadevi ruling, which restricts regularisation of temporary or ad-hoc employees appointed without a full recruitment process.
The court acknowledged that AICTE had filed an affidavit supporting the lecturers. But it said that without documentary proof of proper recruitment, even AICTE’s support could not override constitutional requirements.
On the repeated argument that the lecturers had worked for many years, the bench responded with a clear excerpt from Umadevi:
“Equity for a few cannot outweigh the rights of millions seeking fair opportunity in public employment.”
The judges also pointed out that the earlier Sachin Dawale judgment—heavily relied upon by the petitioners—had itself been clarified subsequently to restrict its application only to those already in service as of October 2013.
After assessing the entire record, the bench concluded that the petitioners had not demonstrated compliance with mandatory recruitment procedures nor produced the necessary individual evidence.
Case Title:- Shri Purushottam Ramkrushna Bahetwar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number:- Writ Petition No. 391 of 2023