College founded on Mahatma Gandhi's principles must treat employees fairly: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently confirmed the appointment of an assistant professor at the Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan’s Mumbadevi Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalay, holding that her nearly seven-year probation period amounted to 'exploitation' and was 'shocking' to judicial conscience [Reshu Singh UOI and Ors]..In its judgment dated May 6, 2025, a division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe criticized the institution’s conduct, while noting that it had acted contrary to the Gandhian principles it was founded upon."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 remarked..The Court further observed, “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.”.The petitioner, Reshu Singh, was appointed as Assistant Professor in English on June 20, 2018, on a two-year probation at Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan’s Mumbadevi Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalay. The probation period was governed by the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan’s rules. After completing the probation period in April 2020, she received no confirmation or communication about any performance-related concerns. .Despite sending multiple emails between April and October 2021 and subsequently submitting a formal, signed representation, her request remained unaddressed. The college principal referred the matter to the Chairman of the Managing Committee, who informed the administration in December 2021 that the required approvals had been received and that her confirmation could proceed. Nevertheless, no letter was issued. She then moved the High Court for relief. .The senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that both the appointment terms and the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018, prohibit any extension of probation beyond two years. Citing Clause 11.3 of the Regulations, he noted that an institution is obligated to confirm a teacher within 45 days of completing the probation period, subject to a review of satisfactory performance. He added that in this case, no probation extension was communicated and there were no adverse remarks. .The college acknowledged that the petitioner had continued working beyond her probation and that the internal communication had cleared her confirmation. The college, however, added that delays in confirming her appointment occurred due to the absence of formal approval. The Court rejected this explanation as contrary to the record. “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 Court said. .The Union of India stated that the appointment confirmation was entirely the responsibility of the college.The Court proceeded to allow the petition and directed the college to issue the petitioner’s confirmation letter with retrospective effect from June 20, 2020. "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," it observed.It also ordered the institution to grant her all consequential benefits, including five non-compoundable advance increments for holding a Ph.D. at the time of appointment, as per the UGC Regulations..Senior Advocate J P Cama with advocates Aseem Naphade, Arsh Misra, Khushboo Agarwal, Ruchika and Mrunmayi appeared for the petitioner-Assistant Professor.Advocates Niranjan Shimpi with advocate Shehnaz V Bharucha represented the Central government and the Central Sanskrit University,Advocate Vivek Khemka appeared for the college management..[Read Order]