Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from a claim for arrears of salary and back wages by a former Vice-Principal of a law college. The petitioner, a practicing lawyer, had been appointed as a full-time lecturer in law in 2003 after clearing NET/SET, and later claimed she was entitled to UGC scale salary and regularization. Disputes led to termination, appeal, writ proceedings, and ultimately a Division Bench order reinstating her with full back wages. The management and petitioner entered into consent terms before the Supreme Court, under which she was reinstated and then resigned; the management agreed to submit bills for arrears to the State. The State rejected the claim, prompting this writ petition. Background: The petitioner passed LLM in 2002 and was appointed as lecturer during 2003. She cleared NET/SET in 2003. A 2004 University circular allowed reserved category candidates without NET/SET to be appointed on contractual basis with requirement to clear NET/SET within two years for regularization. The college informed the University that her appointment was confirmed as per Government circulars. However, later inquiry under University Statute 439B(1) led to termination. The University and College Tribunal dismissed her appeal; a Single Judge dismissed her writ petition; but a Division Bench quashed those orders and directed reinstatement with full back wages. The management's SLP was disposed in terms of consent terms; she was reinstated on 28 March 2014 and resigned on 6 May 2014. The management forwarded her claim; the State sought documents and eventually rejected the claim on 25 November 2016. The petitioner filed writ petition seeking quashing of that rejection and payment of Rs.27,46,079 with interest. Legal issues: Whether the State Government is liable to pay arrears and back wages when the appointment was allegedly made without following prescribed selection procedure and prior approval; whether consent terms bind the State though not a party; whether the appointment was regular permanent or temporary/clock hour basis; and whether University approval was granted. Arguments: The petitioner argued that her appointment was regular on a permanent post, she had cleared NET/SET, the management agreed in consent terms to submit bills, and the State could not refuse dues. The State argued it was not a party to the consent terms and that the appointment lacked requisite approval and procedure. The University argued that mandatory selection procedure under Statute 417 was not followed, approval was only for clock hour/temporary basis for limited academic years, and no approval existed after 2005-2006. Court's analysis: The court examined the appointment letters, circulars, University communications, and previous orders. It considered whether the petitioner was appointed on clock hour basis or full-time permanent basis, whether the University had granted approval, and whether the State could be bound by consent terms to which it was not a signatory. The excerpt ends during arguments, and the final decision is not included in the provided text. However, the court was required to determine whether the rejection order was sustainable. Decision: The final operative decision is not available in the excerpt; the judgment was reserved and pronounced, but the outcome is not included.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Salary Arrears and Back Wages - State Government Liability - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 and University of Mumbai Statutes, Statute 417 - The petitioner claimed arrears of salary and back wages after reinstatement pursuant to consent terms, but the State Government argued it was not liable because the appointment was made without following the mandatory selection procedure and without requisite approval. The court was called upon to examine whether the petitioner's appointment was valid and whether the State could be directed to pay. Held that the State Government's liability depends on compliance with statutory appointment procedure and approvals (Paras 10-16). B) Contract Law - Consent Terms - Binding Effect on Non-Parties - Consent terms before Supreme Court - The State Government contended that the consent terms were executed only between the petitioner and respondent nos.3 and 4, and not signed by the State; hence they could not bind the State. The court considered whether a non-party to a consent order can be bound by its obligations. Held that consent terms bind only parties to the terms, and the State's liability must be determined independently (Paras 11-13). C) Education Law - Appointment of Teachers in Affiliated Colleges - Mandatory Selection Procedure - University of Mumbai Statutes, Statute 417 - The University argued that respondent nos.3 and 4 did not follow the regular selection procedure by publishing a University-approved advertisement and obtaining Government NOC, as required under Statute 417. The appointment was approved only on clock hour basis and temporary year-to-year basis for certain academic years, not as a permanent full-time lecturer. Held that failure to follow mandatory procedure affects regularization and salary claims (Paras 14-16). D) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Judicial Review of Administrative Orders - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction to challenge the State's rejection of her salary claim. The previous writ petition directed the State to consider the proposal afresh; the impugned order rejected the claim. The court considered whether the rejection was arbitrary or based on incorrect factual premises. Held that the court can review the order for errors of law and fact (Paras 1, 9-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government is liable to pay arrears of salary and back wages to the petitioner when the appointment was made without following the prescribed selection procedure and without requisite approval from the University/State; Whether the consent terms filed before the Supreme Court are binding on the State Government when it was not a party; Whether the petitioner's appointment was on a regular permanent post or on clock hour/temporary basis, affecting entitlement to UGC scale and arrears; Whether the University had granted/deemed approval to the petitioner's appointment; compliance with Statute 417 and circulars; Whether the petitioner is entitled to the claimed amount of Rs.27,46,079 with interest after reinstatement and resignation.
Law Points
- Writ of certiorari under Article 226 can be issued to quash orders rejecting salary claims
- State Government not liable for dues if appointment was not made in accordance with mandatory selection procedure and prior approval
- Consent terms binding only on parties to the consent terms and not on non-parties
- Approval of appointment must be obtained from University as per Statute 417
- Full time teacher with more than 12 periods entitled to full time lecturer salary under circular
- completed NET/SET required for regularization
- burden on management to follow selection procedure
