The Court strongly criticised the college and said that its actions were against the very principles on which it was founded.
Bombay: The Bombay High Court recently criticised Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan’s Mumbadevi Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalay for keeping an Assistant Professor on probation for nearly seven years. The Court called it “exploitation” and said it was “shocking” to the judicial conscience. The Court ordered that the teacher be confirmed in her post from June 20, 2020, with all related benefits.
The case involved Reshu Singh, an Assistant Professor of English, who was appointed by the college on June 20, 2018. As per the rules of Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan and the UGC Regulations, 2018, she was put on a two-year probation period.
However, even after completing this probation in April 2020, she did not get any confirmation letter or any communication from the college about her performance. She kept sending emails and even made a formal written request between April and October 2021. Still, there was no response from the college.
In December 2021, the Chairman of the Managing Committee informed the college that all approvals had been received and her confirmation could go ahead. But even after that, the confirmation letter was not issued. With no other option, she approached the Bombay High Court.
A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin S. Bhobe passed the judgment on May 6, 2025. The Court strongly criticised the college and said that its actions were against the very principles on which it was founded.
“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 expressed serious concern over how the teacher had been treated:
“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.”
Reshu Singh’s lawyer pointed out that according to Clause 11.3 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018, an institution must confirm a teacher’s appointment within 45 days after the probation period ends, if the teacher has performed well. Also, there should be no extension of probation beyond two years unless the performance is unsatisfactory — and even then, it must be clearly communicated.
In Singh’s case, there was no communication about extending the probation, and no negative feedback was given.
The college admitted that she had continued working and that internal communication had cleared her confirmation. But they blamed the delay on not having formal approval.
The Court rejected this excuse and said the college’s argument did not match the documents.
“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 High Court said this was a clear-cut matter and ruled in favour of the teacher:
“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,”
The Court ordered the college to:
- Confirm Reshu Singh’s appointment with retrospective effect from June 20, 2020
- Give her all benefits, including five non-compoundable advance increments since she held a Ph.D. at the time of her appointment — as per UGC rules
Legal Representative:
- Senior Advocate J P Cama along with Aseem Naphade, Arsh Misra, Khushboo Agarwal, Ruchika, and Mrunmayi appeared for Reshu Singh.
- Advocates Niranjan Shimpi and Shehnaz V Bharucha represented the Union of India and the Central Sanskrit University.
- Advocate Vivek Khemka appeared for the college management.
