The Bombay High Court condemned the inordinate delay in confirming the appointment of Assistant Professor at Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan’s Mumbadevi Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalay.
The Court held that subjecting her to an extended probationary period of nearly seven years amounted to exploitation and was deeply troubling to the judicial conscience.
A Division bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe took serious exception to the college’s treatment of the petitioner, who was appointed as an Assistant Professor in English on June 20, 2018, under a two-year probation period as per the rules of the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan. Despite completing her probation by April 2020 without any performance-related concerns being raised, her confirmation was indefinitely delayed.
The bench criticized the institution for acting contrary to its foundational values. It added, “अमृतम तू विद्या (elixir to education) is the motto of the Employer of the Petitioner, i.e., Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan. On its letterhead, it is mentioned as ‘founded with the blessings of Mahatma Gandhi.’ There is no debate that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is the father of the nation, ‘Mahatma Gandhi’. If this college is to function, inspired by the teachings of the ‘Mahatma’, we would expect every employee to be treated fairly and there ought not to be any exploitation,”
The Court further added, “Considering the above, we are intrigued that the Petitioner, who is a lady teacher, has been made to work as a Probationer for 6 years and 10 months. This also shocks our judicial conscience. A teacher cannot be treated in this way. The manner in which the Petitioner has been treated amounts to exploitation, to say the least.”
Petitioner argued that both the terms of her appointment and the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018, explicitly barred any extension of probation beyond two years.
Notably, no formal extension of probation was ever communicated to her, nor were there any adverse remarks against her. Even the college conceded that she had continued in service beyond the original probation term and that internal communications had cleared her confirmation.
However, the college attempted to justify the delay by claiming a lack of formal approval. The Court firmly rejected this reasoning, referring to the Chairman’s prior communication confirming that the Central Sanskrit University (CSU) had granted approval based on the High-Level Committee’s report. The bench remarked:
“This contention runs counter to the communication of the Chairman which categorically records that the High Level Committee report has been studied and the CSU has granted its approval and the confirmation letter can be issued. A submission by the Management against the records can neither be countenanced, nor can be appreciated. In fact, this submission astonishes us.“
The Union of India clarified that the responsibility for issuing the confirmation lay solely with the college.
Ultimately, the Court ruled in her favor, ordering the institution to issue her confirmation letter with retrospective effect from June 20, 2020—the date her probation officially ended. It further directed the college to extend all consequential benefits to her, including five non-compoundable advance increments under UGC Regulations for holding a Ph.D. at the time of her appointment.
The bench added, “It is often remarked in the Courts, in a given case, that it is like an ‘open and shut case.’ This is one case wherein we can say that this case is an open and shut case.”
Cause Title: Reshu Singh v. Union of India & Ors., [2025:BHC-OS:7969-DB]
Appearance:
Petitioner:Senior Advocate J.P. Cama, with Advocates Aseem Naphade, Arsh Misra, Khushboo Agarwal, Ruchika, and Mrunmayi.
Respondents: Advocates Niranjan Shimpi and Shehnaz V. Bharucha, Vivek Khemka.