/2023 INSC 0775/
Non­Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5483­5484 OF 2023
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.6764­6765 of 2018)
Vijaya Bhiku Kadam         … Appellant
versus
Mayani Bhag Shikshan Prasarak 
Mandal & Ors.           … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Leave granted.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. The   issue   concerns   the   employment   of   the   appellant,   a
lecturer,   with   the   second   respondent–College   which   is
affiliated   to   the   fourth   respondent–Shivaji   University,
Kolhapur, Maharashtra.  
3. The appellant has done M.A. in English and by the year
1992, she had acquired the qualification of PhD.   The second
respondent–College   was   established   in   the   Academic   Year
SLP (C) Nos.6764­6765 of 2018     Page  1  of  152023INSC775

1991­1992.  On an application made by the appellant, by the
order   dated   15 th
  September   1992,   the   second   respondent
College   appointed   the   appellant   as   a   part­time   lecturer   in
English   for   the   Academic   Year   1992­1993.     The   first
respondent­Society runs the second respondent­College.   The
fourth respondent–University approved the said appointment.
4. On   5 th
  July   1993,   an   advertisement   (the   first
advertisement)   was   published   by   the   first   respondent   for
inviting  applications to the posts of full­time lecturer.   In the
said   advertisement,   two   posts   were   advertised.     One   was   in
the   open   category   and   the   other   one   was   against   the
Scheduled   Caste   category.     The   appellant   and   the   fifth
respondent   applied   for   the   said   posts   along   with   another
candidate,   namely,   Ms   S.D.   Patil.     The   University   Selection
Committee recommended the aforesaid three candidates.  The
name of Ms S.D. Patil was first in the order of merit, the fifth
respondent   was   the   second   one   and   the   appellant   was   the
third one.   Though the fifth respondent did not belong to the
Scheduled   Caste   category,   on   26 th
  August   1993,   the   first
respondent   appointed   her   against   the   post   reserved   for   the
Scheduled   Caste   category   for   a   period   of   one   year.     Ms   S.D.
Patil, the candidate at serial no.1 in the order of merit, did not
join the employment and therefore, by the appointment order
dated 8 th
 September 1993, the appellant was appointed to the
post   of   lecturer   in   English   for   one   academic   year   on   a   full­
time basis.
SLP (C) Nos.6764­6765 of 2018     Page  2  of  15

5. The   fourth   respondent–University   approved   the
appointment   of   Ms   S.D.   Patil   as   a   full­time   lecturer   in   the
open   category.     The   fourth   respondent–University   approved
the   appointment   of   the   fifth   respondent   for   a   period   of   one
academic   year   against   the   post   reserved   for   the   Scheduled
Caste category.  The approval was given subject to a condition
that during the period of probation, the candidates must clear
the   NET   Examination.     Noticing   the   mistake   in   the   approval
granted   by   the   fourth   respondent–University,   the   second
respondent–College wrote a letter on 28 th
 January 1994 to the
fourth   respondent–University   requesting   to   grant   approval   to
the  appointment of  the  appellant  in  the  open   category  as  Ms
S.D. Patil did not join.   The fourth respondent–University, by
the   letter   dated   4 th
  March   1994,   did   not   accept   the   said
request   as   the   appellant   was   not   possessing   NET
qualification.     At   that   time,   both   the   appellant   and   the   fifth
respondent were not possessing NET qualification. 
6. On   8 th
  September   1994,   the   second   respondent–College
again   advertised   (the   second   advertisement)   the   two   posts.
The   advertisement   recorded   that   the   requirement   of   NET
qualification   was   exempted   to   those   candidates   who   have
been awarded a PhD degree before 31 st
 December 1993.  Both
the   appellant   and   the   fifth   respondent   applied   for   that   post.
However,   the   fifth   respondent   was   not   possessing   the
qualification   of   a   PhD.       She   had   appeared   for   the   M.Phil
degree   examination.     The   University   Selection   Committee
recommended   the   names   of   the   appellant   and   the   fifth
SLP (C) Nos.6764­6765 of 2018     Page  3  of  15

respondent.     As   per   the   order   of   merit,   the   appellant   was
above   the   fifth   respondent.     The   Selection   Committee
recommended   the   appellant   for   appointment   to   the   open
category post.  The fifth respondent was recommended for the
post   reserved   against   the   Scheduled   Caste   category.     The
fourth   respondent–University   approved   the   appointment   of
the   appellant   on   the   open   post   and   granted   approval   to   the
appointment   of   the   fifth   respondent   on   the   post   reserved   for
the Scheduled Caste category.
7. The   third   advertisement   was   published   by   the   first
respondent–College on 7 th
 August 1995 wherein, only the post
of   lecturer   reserved   for   the   Scheduled   Caste   category   was
advertised.     Pursuant   to   the   said   advertisement,   the   fifth
respondent   applied   for   the   said   post.     The   Selection
Committee   recommended   the   fifth   respondent   against   the
said   post.     By   the   letter   dated   3 rd
  January   1996,   the   fourth
respondent–University   approved   the   appointment   of   the   fifth
respondent   against   the   reserved   post   for   a   period   of   one
academic   year.     Accordingly,   a   letter   of   appointment   dated
20 th
  June   1996   was   issued   to   the   fifth   respondent   informing
her   that   her   appointment   will   come   to   an   end   after   the
Selection   Committee   selects   a   Scheduled   Caste   candidate.
The   fourth   advertisement   was   issued   on   17 th
  June   1996   for
the   same   post   reserved   for   Scheduled   Caste.     The   fifth
respondent again applied for the post. On 28 th
  October 1996,
the second respondent–College terminated the appointment of
the   fifth   respondent   from   the   end   of   the   term.     Being
SLP (C) Nos.6764­6765 of 2018     Page  4  of  15

aggrieved   by   the   termination,   the   fifth   respondent   preferred
an   appeal   before   the   University   and   College   Tribunal,   Pune
(for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in which the appellant was not made
a   party.     The   Tribunal   granted   a   stay   to   the   order   of   her
termination.  During the pendency of the said appeal, the first
respondent–College   again   passed   an   order   of   termination
dated   20 th
  April   1997   against   the   fifth   respondent   on   the
ground that the Commerce Section in the College was closed
down.     Therefore,   another   appeal   was   preferred   by   the   fifth
respondent   before   the   Tribunal.     By   the   order   dated   5 th
February 1998, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed
reinstatement of the fifth respondent to her original post.  The
first   respondent–College   filed   a   writ   petition   for   challenging
the   said   order,   in   which   the   appellant   applied   for
impleadment.     However,   the   High   Court   rejected   the   said
application.
8. On 6 th
 May 1998, in the writ petition filed by the College,
an  interim  order  was  passed  by   the  High   Court  directing  the
College   to   continue   the   fifth   respondent   as   a   lecturer.
Therefore,   by   the   letter   dated   5 th
  January   1999,   the   College
addressed   a   letter   to   the   fourth   respondent–University,   in
which it was stated that due to the interim order in favour of
the   fifth   respondent,   there   will   be   three   full­time   lecturers   of
English   for   which,   there   was   no   approval.     Thereafter,   the
College   requested   the   fourth   respondent–University   to   grant
approval to continue the appellant as a half­time or part­time
teacher.   As the approval was for two and a half posts of full­
SLP (C) Nos.6764­6765 of 2018     Page  5  of  15

time   lecturers   in   English,   the   fourth   respondent–University
did   not   accede   to   the   said   request.     Therefore,   by   the   letter
dated 29 th
  March 2000, the first respondent–College informed
the   appellant   that   for   the   next   academic   year,   she   will   work
for  a half­time  workload  and on  half  pay.   In  the  meanwhile,
the   appellant   filed   a   writ   petition   in   the   High   Court   for
challenging   the   order   dated   5 th
  February   1998   by   which   the
fifth   respondent   was   ordered   to   be   reinstated.     During   the
pendency of the said writ petition filed by the appellant, in the
writ   petition   filed   by   the   College,   there   was   a   compromise
between   the   College   and   the   fifth   respondent   and   therefore,
the writ petition earlier filed by the College was disposed of as
infructuous.     On   5 th
  September   2014,   the   High   Court   in   the
writ petition filed by the appellant set aside the order dated 5 th
February   1998   of   the   Tribunal   and   remanded   the   appeal   for
fresh consideration.  In the meanwhile, by the communication
dated   29 th
  March   2000,   the   College   informed   the   appellant
that   her   seniority   will   be   below   the   seniority   of   the   fifth
respondent.     The   appellant   preferred   an   appeal   against   the
said  decision  before the  Tribunal.    The restored  appeal  along
with the appeal preferred by the appellant were heard and by
the   common   judgment   and   order   dated   21 st
  December   2015,
the  appeal  preferred   by  the   appellant  was  dismissed  and   the
appeals preferred by the fifth respondent were allowed.
9. Being   aggrieved   by   the   said   common   judgment,   the
appellant   filed   two   writ   petitions   before   the   High   Court   of
Judicature at Bombay.  By the impugned judgment and order
SLP (C) Nos.6764­6765 of 2018     Page  6  of  15

dated   25 th
  July   2017,   the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High
Court   dismissed   both   the   writ   petitions.     Being   aggrieved   by
the   said   judgment,   the   present   appeals   have   been   preferred
by  the   appellant  in  which   on   12 th
  March   2018,   while   issuing
notice,   the   status   quo   was   ordered   to   be   maintained.     As   a
result   of   which,   the   appellant   continued   in   part­time/half­
time service.
SUBMISSIONS
10. The submission of the learned senior counsel appearing
for   the   appellant   is   that   the   appellant   was   appointed   on   the
basis   of   the   first   advertisement.     Even   on   the   basis   of   the
second   advertisement,   the   appellant   was   selected.     In   both
processes,   the   appellant   was   selected   against   the   open
category   post.     That   is   how,   on   26 th
  October   1994,   the   first
respondent–College   issued   the   letter   of   appointment
appointing   the   appellant   in   open   category   to   which   the   fifth
respondent   did   not   raise   any   objection.     On   the   contrary,
pursuant   to   the   third   and   fourth   advertisements,   the   fifth
respondent   applied   for   the   post   which   was   reserved   for   the
Scheduled   Caste   category.     The   submission   of   the   learned
senior  counsel  is  that  after  the  fifth  respondent accepted  the
appointment of the appellant against open category, it was too
late in the day for her to approach the Tribunal and contend
that she was above the appellant in the order  of merit in the
process   conducted   on   the   basis   of   the   first   advertisement.
His   submission   is   that   the   appellant   was   a   regularly
SLP (C) Nos.6764­6765 of 2018     Page  7  of  15

appointed candidate and therefore, her appointment on a full­
time basis cannot be disturbed.  
11. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
fifth   respondent   is   that   pursuant   to   the   first   advertisement
when   the   selection   process   was   conducted,   the   fifth
respondent   was   shown   above   the   appellant   in   the   order   of
merit.     Therefore,   the   fifth   respondent   ought   to   have   been
appointed   against   the   open   category   post   and   the   appellant
on   a   temporary   basis   against   the   post   reserved   for   the
Scheduled   Caste   category.     As   far   as   the   first   and   second
respondents   are   concerned,   their   stand   is   that   they   have
abided by the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal.  The
learned counsel appearing  for the fourth  respondent justified
the action of granting approval to the fifth respondent against
the   open   category   post.     The   submission   of   the   learned
Standing   Counsel   for   the   State   Government   is   that   the
additional  burden of payment of salary cannot be  put on the
State   Government   by   directing   the   appointment   of   the
appellant against the full­time post.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
12. Pursuant   to   the   first   advertisement   published   on   5 th
July   1993,   both   the   appellant   and   the   fifth   respondent   had
applied   for   selection   to   two   posts   of   lecturers   in   English.
Pursuant   to   the   said   process,   on   8 th
  September   1993,   the
appellant   was   appointed   by   the   first   respondent–College   as
lecturer in English against the open post.  In the said letter of
SLP (C) Nos.6764­6765 of 2018     Page  8  of  15

appointment,   it   was   mentioned   that   it   was   on   a   temporary
basis   till   the   appellant   passed   the   NET   Examination   during
the   Academic   Year   1993­1994,   during   the   probation   period.
What   is   important   here   is   that   by   the   letter   dated   20 th
January 1994, the fourth respondent–University approved the
appointment   of   Ms   S.D.   Patil   against   the   open   post   of
lecturer.     As   noted   earlier,   Ms   S.D.   Patil   had   participated   in
the   process   on   the   basis   of   the   first   advertisement   but   she
was   not   interested   in   getting   employment.     Under   the   same
letter,   the   appointment   of   the   fifth   respondent   was   made   for
one   academic   year   against   the   post   reserved   for   the
Scheduled   Caste   category.     Thereafter,   the   College
Administration   wrote   to   the   fourth   respondent–University
stating   that   Ms   S.D.   Patil   had   not   joined   and   therefore,   they
requested   for   grant   of   approval   to   the   appointment   of   the
appellant.  The fifth respondent never made any protest about
her  appointment against the  post  reserved  for  the  Scheduled
Caste category.  In fact, pursuant to the second advertisement
dated 8 th
 September 1994, the fifth respondent again applied.
Even the appellant applied.   As per the advertisement, as the
appellant   was   a   PhD,   the   requirement   of   NET   qualification
was   relaxed.     It   is   pertinent   to   note   here   that   the   fifth
respondent did not challenge the process that commenced on
the   basis   of   the   second   advertisement   on   the   ground   that
against   the   first   advertisement,   she   was   entitled   to   the
appointment   to   the   open   post.     On   the   basis   of   the   second
advertisement,   the   Selection   Committee   recommended   both
SLP (C) Nos.6764­6765 of 2018     Page  9  of  15

the appellant and the fifth respondent.  However, in the order
of merit, the appellant was shown at serial no.1 and the fifth
respondent was shown at serial  no.2.   By the letter dated 5 th
January 1995, the fourth respondent–University approved the
appointment   of   the   appellant   against   the   open   post   of
lecturer.  The fourth respondent–University also approved the
appointment of the fifth respondent against the post reserved
for the Scheduled Caste category on a temporary basis.
13. Thereafter   came   the   fourth   advertisement   dated   17 th
June 1996 for the same post reserved for the Scheduled Caste
category.     Again,   the   fifth   respondent   applied.     However,   the
management of the second respondent–College appointed one
Mr Gorakh Jagannath Sathe against the reserved post which
led   to   the   order   of   termination   of   the   fifth   respondent.     As
pointed  out  earlier,   the   fifth   respondent  challenged   the  order
of termination by filing an appeal to which, the appellant was
not   made   a   party.     In   the   said   appeal,   a   specific   stand   was
taken   by   the   College   that   the   appointment   of   the   appellant
was   made   on   the   open   post   regularly   and   she   has   been
working as a confirmed teacher in the said post.   During the
pendency of the appeal preferred by the fifth respondent, the
second   order   of   termination   was   passed   on   the   ground   that
the Commerce faculty was closed.  Therefore, one more appeal
was preferred by the fifth respondent.   On 5 th
  February 1998,
the   Tribunal   by   setting   aside   the   order   of   termination   of   the
fifth respondent, directed her reinstatement.   For giving effect
to   the   said   order,   on   5 th
  January   1999,   the   appellant   was
SLP (C) Nos.6764­6765 of 2018     Page  10  of  15

appointed   again   as   a   part­time   lecturer   on   the   ground   that
there   was   approval   to   only   two   and   a   half   posts   of   English
lecturers and the fifth respondent cannot be removed.   In the
writ   petition   filed   by   the   appellant,   there   was   an   order   of
remand.     After   remand,   the   appeal   preferred   by   the   fifth
respondent   was   again   allowed   and   that   is   how   the   appellant
filed   a   writ   petition   before   the   High   Court   which   has   been
dismissed by the impugned order.  The High Court found that
when   the   selection   process   was   conducted   against   the   first
advertisement,   the   appellant   was   placed   below   the   fifth
respondent in the order of merit and in fact, approval was not
granted to the appointment of the appellant.
14. The analysis of the aforesaid factual position shows that
the appellant has been placed in a very peculiar position.  On
the   basis   of   the   process   conducted   pursuant   to   the   first
advertisement,  the  appellant was  appointed  against  the  open
post   by   the   letter   of   appointment   issued   on   8 th
  September
1993   which   recorded   that   the   appointment   of   the   appellant
was temporary subject to the condition of qualifying the NET
Examination   during   the   probation   period.     At   that   time,
though   the   fifth   respondent   was   appointed   against   the   post
reserved   for   the   Scheduled   Caste   category,   she   did   not
protest.     Pursuant   to   the   second   advertisement,   both   the
appellant   and   the   fifth   respondent   applied.     By   the   letter
dated 26 th
 October 1994, the appellant was appointed subject
to clearing the NET Examination during the probation period.
By the letter dated 5 th
  January 1995, the appointment of the
SLP (C) Nos.6764­6765 of 2018     Page  11  of  15

appellant   was   approved   by   the   fourth   respondent–University
against the open post.   As stated earlier, the fifth respondent
applied   pursuant   to   the   third   and   fourth   advertisements
without   making   any   grievances   about   the   outcome   of   the
process   conducted   under   the   second   advertisement   under
which   the   appellant   was   appointed   against   the   open   post.
Due to the orders passed by the Tribunal, by the order dated
5 th
  January   1999,   the   appellant   was   again   appointed   as   a
part­time lecturer on a temporary basis.   Thus, the appellant
worked   against   the   open   category   post   of   lecturer   in   English
from   8 th
  September   1993   till   5 th
  January   1999   and   in   the
meanwhile,   the   fourth   respondent–University   approved   the
regular   appointment   of   the   appellant   by   the   letter   dated   5 th
January   1995.     This   situation   has   arisen   as   the   fifth
respondent never objected to the appointment of the appellant
pursuant   to   the   first   and   second   advertisements   and   she
participated   in   the   two   further   processes   conducted   on   the
basis of the third and fourth advertisements.  In this process,
the   appellant   has   become   age   barred   to   get   the   appointment
to   the   post   of   lecturer   elsewhere.     Even   assuming   that   there
was   an   error   committed   by   the   College   Management   by
appointing the appellant against the open category of post in
the year 1994, the appellant cannot be allowed to suffer, as in
the   second   process,   she   was   the   first   in   the   order   of   merit.
This selection was never challenged by the fifth respondent.
15. The appellant continues to work as a lecturer in English
on a half time basis.   Therefore, for doing substantial justice,
SLP (C) Nos.6764­6765 of 2018     Page  12  of  15

this   is   a   fit   case   where   we   should   invoke   our   power   under
Article   142   of   the   Constitution   of   India   for   continuing   her
appointment   on   full   time   basis.   While   doing   so,   we   will   have
to   issue  directions   to  the   State   Government  to  release   grant­
in­aid   to   the   first   and   second   respondents   for   payment   of
salary to the appellant.
16. Hence,   by   modifying   the   impugned   order,   without
disturbing   the   fifth   respondent,   we   issue   the   following
directions in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142
of the Constitution of India:
a. The   appellant   shall   be   reinstated   to   the   post   of
lecturer   in   English   in   the   second   respondent­
College with effect from 5 th
  January 1995 within a
period of one month from today;
b. However,   the   appellant   will   not   be   entitled   to   the
salary   of   the   post   of   lecturer   from   5 th
  January
1995   till   the   date   of   her   appointment   in   terms   of
this order;
c. The   appellant   shall   be   placed   in   the   seniority   list
immediately   below   the   fifth   respondent   and   the
lecturer   appointed   on   the   post   reserved   for
Scheduled Caste;
SLP (C) Nos.6764­6765 of 2018     Page  13  of  15

d. As   clarified   earlier,   the   appellant   will   not   be
entitled   to   salary   admissible   the   post   of   lecturer
from   5 th
  January   1995   till   the   date   of   her
appointment in terms of this order and this period
shall   be   taken   into   consideration   only   for   the
limited purposes of granting retiral benefits to the
appellant;
e. We   direct   the   State   Government   to   release
necessary grant­in­aid for payment of salary to the
appellant from the date of her appointment to the
post of lecturer  in English pursuant to this order,
if necessary, by creating a supernumerary post;
f. We   make   it   clear   that   notwithstanding   this   order,
the   post   and   status   of   the   fifth   respondent   shall
remain unaffected; 
g. We make it clear that the  directions issued under
this order are in the exercise of the jurisdiction of
this   Court   under   Article   142   of   the   Constitution
and   the   same   shall   not   be   treated   as   precedent;
and  
SLP (C) Nos.6764­6765 of 2018     Page  14  of  15

h. The appeals are disposed of on the above terms.
….…………………….J.
  (Abhay S. Oka)
.....…………………...J.
  (Sanjay Karol)
New Delhi;
August 28, 2023.
SLP (C) Nos.6764­6765 of 2018     Page  15  of  15