Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: 16 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: The Principal Rizvi College of Arts, Science and Commerce and the Rizvi Education Society (managing trustees of the college).
  • Respondents: 1) Mrs. Hasina Hafiz Shaikh (full‑time lecturer, Sociology), 2) Registrar, University of Mumbai, 3) Ms. Maria Gour (college employee), 4) Joint Director, Higher Education, Mumbai Regional Office.
  • Background: Ms. Shaikh was first appointed on 06‑08‑1998 after selection by a local committee. She was terminated on 21‑04‑1999, re‑appointed on 16‑06‑1999 (till 20‑04‑2000), terminated again on 21‑04‑2000, re‑appointed on 01‑07‑2000 (till 30‑04‑2001). On 02‑03‑2001 the University informed the college that her appointment could not be approved because she had not cleared the NET/SET examination, leading to a termination order dated 27‑04‑2001.
  • Ms. Shaikh appealed under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (Appeal No. 68 of 2001). The Mumbai University and College Tribunal, on 19‑07‑2002, allowed the appeal, quashing the termination, directing reinstatement, payment of salary arrears from 09‑06‑2000, and directing the Joint Director of Education to reimburse the college for the salary payable.
  • The petition was admitted on 31‑03‑2003 and the Tribunal order was stayed. An interim stay was vacated on 16‑12‑2005 (Civil Application No. 2147 of 2003) directing reinstatement subject to the final outcome.
  • A review petition (Review Petition (St) No. 3139 of 2006) filed by the college was rejected on 16‑03‑2006, but the court permitted the college to forward a proposal for Ms. Shaikh to the University/UGC for relaxation or regularisation. No direction on arrears was made then.
  • On 04‑12‑2025, after a 20‑year lapse, the Court queried whether failure to reinstate would breach its order.
  • The college filed an affidavit on 08‑07‑2026 stating that after the interim stay a vacancy arose, Ms. Shaikh participated in a fresh selection process, was not found suitable, and never reported for duty or applied for reinstatement. The college asserted that her conduct amounted to a waiver of services for over ten years.
  • Counsel for the college argued that the appointments were purely temporary, that the lecturer had no right to permanent service, and cited judgments (Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi; Hindustan Education Society v. Kaleem) supporting the view that temporary appointments do not create legitimate expectation.
  • Counsel for Ms. Shaikh contended that the college failed to contact her, that she was covered by Government Resolution dated 22‑12‑1995 (which protects lecturers not clearing NET/SET), and that termination without one‑month notice was unlawful.
  • The Court examined relevant Government Resolutions (GR 22‑12‑1995 and GR 18‑10‑2001) and the Supreme Court judgment in Vishwaprakash s/o Laxman Shirsath, concluding that appointments after 11‑12‑1999 do not enjoy the exemption and that legitimate expectation does not apply.
  • The Court noted that the college had not forwarded the proposal to the University/UGC, and that Ms. Shaikh had not reported for duty after the stay was vacated.

Final Outcome

  • The petition is disposed of by directing the petitioners (Rizvi College and Rizvi Education Society) to pay Ms. Hasina Hafiz Shaikh her last drawn salary arrears from 09‑06‑2000 to 16‑12‑2005.
  • Interest is to be paid at 9% per annum from 16‑12‑2005 until full payment.
  • Payment must be made within four weeks of the order.
  • All parties are directed to act on the digitally signed, QR‑verifiable copy of the order.

Topics: Employment Law, Higher Education