IN THE judgement of the case- G.H. Raisoni College of Engineering through its Director, Dr. Sachin Untwale v. Manisha Manohar Ingale, RTMNU and Joint Director of Technical Education, Nagpur, pronounced on May 9, 2025, Justice Mukulika S. Jawalkar has, at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, while allowing the writ petition, confirmed the order of termination of services of the respondent-Assistant Professor, Electronics and Tele-communication, Manisha Manohar Ingale by quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur on May 6, 2024. The respondent-1, Manisha Ingale had applied for the post of Assisstant Professor in Electronics and Telecommunication in the petitioner-College and was appointed on June 1, 2015. She was on probation for a period of two years from June 1, 2015.

 

On June 10, 2015, immediately after her appointment, the respondent-1, moved an application with the Director of the petitioner/ Institute seeking maternity leave. The petitioner-Institution granted six months maternity leave from June 10, 2015 to December 9, 2015. Thereafter, she also sought extension of the said leave for another four months, that is up to March 31, 2016. The petitioner had extended the leave and also started the probation period afresh from April 1, 2016. She was irregular throughout in discharging her duties. She did not report, as and when required. She also even did not show any inclination to register for Ph.D. which is a pre-requisite for her post to be permanent. The petitioner issued a letter on February 20, 2018 and extended probation period by one more year till March 31, 2019. The respondent-1 failed to discharge her duties as expected, despite of all the reminders. The petitioner terminated her service on ‘unsatisfactory’ grounds and an amount of Rs 51,792/- was deposited in her bank account in lieu of one month’s notice.

 

Being aggrieved, Ingale filed an appeal against the termination order passed by the petitioner-institution before the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur, along with application for condonation of delay for filing an appeal. The Tribunal condoned the delay and on May 6, 2024, the Tribunal passed the judgement and order and granted reinstatement to the respondent-Ingale with 75 pc back wages. Hence, this termination order was challenged by filing this petition. Clause 4.4.6.1 of UGC Regulations specifies that, to be appointed as an Assistant Professor in Colleges with Engineering and Technology Discipline, essential is first class master’s degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering and Technology. The petitioner has not claimed anywhere that she did post graduation in first class and in the appropriate branch of Engineering and Technology Discipline. Moreover, if termination order is perused, it was simply on unsatisfactory performance. Even if, it is held that Ph.D is not required, still it is not satisfactorily established by the respondent-Ingale, as to how she is qualified to be appointed as an Assistant Professor in view of Clause 4.4.6.1. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the judgement of the case –Y.K.V. Jeyaraj & others v. Kalyani Mathivanan (2015) 6 SCC 363 would not be made applicable in the present set of facts as in the said matter, the State of Tamil Nadu has not adopted the UGC Guidelines.

 

However, in Maharashtra also there is no amendment to the Maharashtra Public Universities Act and the Notifications and Regulations would govern the services of the professors and other designation. Admittedly, the petitioner-College is autonomous and not receiving any grant from the UGC. The HC’s attention was drawn to the UGC Guideline 7.4.0, which reads: “ 7.4.0. the Universities/ State Governments shall modify or amend the relevant Act/ Statutes of the Universities within 6 months of adoption of these Regulations.” Though this has been the direction, however, there is no such modification by the State of Maharashtra in the Maharashtra Public Universities Act or any modification by the University. In fact, it is not necessary to assign any reason while terminating services of probationer. As the respondent availed maternity leave of ten months immediately after her appointment, there could not be any assessment of her performance and therefore, fresh order issued in respect of probation commencing from April 1, 2016. Her probation was extended by another one year which was duly accepted by the respondent-Ingale. Letter of February 20, 2018 whereby period of probation is extended is very specific that she has called for gathering work, but she has not reported, she has not registered for Ph.D. negligence has been reported in handling work at many places. She was informed to execute responsibility and task assigned to improve performance and deliver. There is no challenge to this letter and she accepted her extension of probation. She has also signed clearance form. The Appeal has been filed after one year, without showing sufficient cause. The delay was condoned. The Joint Director did not file reply, whether the State Government has adopted UGC Regulations and Statutes by way of amendment. As such, after going through the documents placed on record and citations relied upon, the HC has voiced satisfaction that due procedure has been followed by the Management before terminating the services of the respondent-Probationer. Her performance was not satisfactory as per the petitioner. No bias is seen. On perusing the documents, the court found that she was immediately given maternity leave after joining duties for ten months. As her performance could not be assessed, the fresh order of probation in her favour for two years, was duly accepted by her and she even thanked the Management for that. In the opinion of the HC, if there was any bias or personal grudge against the respondent-Ingale, Management would not have granted opportunities to her to improve her performance. As such, there is no illegality in the termination of service order passed by the Management. The College Tribunal has also not discussed as to why the appellant –respondent- 1 is entitled for 75 pc back wages. According to the HC, the respondent-1 is not entitled for any back wages.