In a significant judgment dated May 6, 2025, the Bombay High Court addressed the prolonged probationary period of an assistant professor at Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan’s Mumbadevi Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalay. The division bench, comprising Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe, expressed strong disapproval over the institution's decision to keep the petitioner, Reshu Singh, on probation for nearly seven years, describing it as "shocking" and tantamount to "exploitation."
Reshu Singh was appointed as an Assistant Professor in English on June 20, 2018, under a two-year probation period governed by the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan’s rules. Upon completing her probation in April 2020, Singh received no communication regarding her confirmation or any performance-related concerns. Despite multiple emails between April and October 2021 and a formal representation, her status remained unaddressed. The college principal eventually referred the matter to the Chairman of the Managing Committee, who, in December 2021, indicated that the necessary approvals had been obtained and that her confirmation could proceed. However, no formal confirmation letter was issued, prompting Singh to seek legal recourse.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that both the terms of appointment and the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018, prohibit extending probation beyond two years. Clause 11.3 of the UGC Regulations mandates that an institution must confirm a teacher within 45 days of completing the probation period, provided the performance is satisfactory. In Singh’s case, there were no adverse remarks or formal extensions communicated.
The college acknowledged that Singh continued working beyond her probation and that internal communications had cleared her confirmation. However, they attributed the delay in issuing the confirmation letter to the absence of formal approval. The Court found this explanation inconsistent with the records, particularly the Chairman’s communication, which confirmed that the High-Level Committee's report had been studied and that the Central Sanskrit University (CSU) had granted its approval for confirmation. The Court stated, "A submission by the Management against the records can neither be countenanced, nor can be appreciated. In fact, this submission astonishes us."
Emphasizing the institution's foundational principles, the Court remarked, "‘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.' 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 noted, "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."
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and directed the college to issue Singh’s confirmation letter with retrospective effect from June 20, 2020. This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding fair employment practices, especially in institutions that espouse ethical and moral values inspired by leaders like Mahatma Gandhi.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.