DECCAN EDUCATION SOC THR ITS SECRETARY AND ANR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND ORS
Estoppel against State Authorities participating in Selection Processes and the Three-Year Limitation on Recovery of Salary Grant Arrears.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-KOL:1282-DB
Decision Date: 17-02-2026
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 226; Doctrine of Estoppel; Administrative Law - Grant-in-Aid Code; Service Law - Validity of Selection Process; Law of Limitation - Recovery of Arrears
- Facts: The Petitioners, Deccan Education Society and Willingdon College, sought permission in 2000 to fill two full-time and one part-time Assistant Professor posts in Hindi. The Joint Director of Education granted "No Objection" for two full-time posts. However, due to reduced workload, the college conducted a selection process for one full-time and one part-time post. Respondent No. 4 was selected for the part-time post in 2001. A representative of the Joint Director participated in the selection committee and signed the results. Despite this, the Management did not formally appoint her to the part-time post, initially employing her on a clock-hour and contract basis. Following a 2008 directive from the University's Grievance Redressal Committee and subsequent litigation, she was finally appointed to the part-time post in 2012. When the Management later sought salary grants for her position, the Joint Director rejected the proposal in 2021, claiming the appointment was faulty as permission was originally for full-time posts, not part-time.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioners filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated October 8, 2021, passed by the Divisional Joint Director of Higher Education, which refused salary grants and accommodation for Respondent No. 4.
- Issue: Whether the Joint Director of Education is justified in denying salary grants by terming the appointment as "faulty" when the authority's representative participated in the selection process, signed the results, and the office subsequently approved the appointments?
- Holding: No, the authority is estopped from challenging the validity of the appointment. The Writ Petition was partly allowed, directing the release of arrears for the last three years.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the selection procedure was conducted with the "confidence and participation" of the competent authority. A representative of the Joint Director was a committee member who scrutinized the documents and signed the appointment results. Furthermore, the Joint Director's office had granted formal approval to the appointments in 2002. Since the authority was well aware of why a part-time appointment was made (reduced workload) and actively participated in the process, it is now "estopped" from contending the appointment was faulty. However, regarding the monetary claim, the Court applied the settled law that arrears can only be claimed for the preceding 36 months, as the Management failed to demand the grants promptly since 2012.
🔒 For Members Only