Bombay High Court
Vijay S/O Rajaram Shegokar vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 22 January, 2026
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2026:BHC-NAG:1628-DB
Judgment 1 WP620-2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 620 OF 2018
Vijay s/o. Rajaram Shegokar, aged about
60 years, Occupation : Service,
Resident of Plot No.69, Yogi Niwas,
Jetwan Housing Society, Shastri Layout,
Khamla, Nagpur-440 025 MOB.9422102658
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Medical Education & Drugs
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. The Director of Medical Education &
Research, Government Dental College
& Hospital Building, St. George Hospital
Compound, Mumbai.
3. Dean, Government Medical College &
Hospital, Nagpur.
4. The Medical Council of India, through its
Secretary, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka-1,
New Delhi-77.
5. Dr. Rajkumar Balkrishna Meshram,
Occupation : Service, Resident of
Plot No.48, Girija Vivekanand Nagar,
Nagpur.
.... RESPONDENTS.
______________________________________________________________
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri I.J. Damle, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri R.M.Bhangde, Advocate for the respondent No.4
Shri A.S.Jaiswal, Sr. Adv. a/b. Shri S.S.Palshikar, Adv. for the respondent No.5
______________________________________________________________
Judgment 2 WP620-2018.odt
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 22, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Anil S. Kilor, J)
1. Heard.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. By way of present writ petition the petitioner has questioned the legality and correctness of the judgment dated 22/01/2018 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 358 of 2009, allowing the application preferred by the respondent No.5, holding that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of 'Associate Professor' is not legal and not as per the Regulation of 1998 and accordingly the same has been quashed and set aside with direction to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the respondent No.5 herein for promotion on the said post.
Brief facts of the present case are as under :
Judgment 3 WP620-2018.odt
4. The petitioner is having qualification B.Sc., M.Sc. (Micro Biology) and Ph. D. in Micro Biology. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the subject of Micro Biology w.e.f. 14/06/1990 through M.P.S.C. Thereafter, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) considered the petitioner as well as other candidates, including respondent No.5, for regular promotion on the post of Associate Professor. On finding him more meritorious, the petitioner was promoted as 'Associate Professor' vide order dated 01/11/2007.
5. The respondent No.5, feeling aggrieved by the order of promotion dated 01/11/2007, approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.358 of 2009. It is the case of the respondent No.5 that the petitioner is not qualified as he does not possess Ph.D.(Medical Microbiology), which is the qualification prescribed by the Medical Council of India for appointment on the post of 'Associate Professor.'
6. The learned Tribunal heard both the parties and passed the impugned judgment dated 22/01/2018, quashing and setting aside the order of promotion dated 01/11/2007, granting promotion to the Judgment 4 WP620-2018.odt petitioner on the post of 'Associate Professor' and directing the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the respondent No.5 for promotion as Associate Professor. Hence, this petition.
7. We have heard the respective learned counsel for the parties.
8. Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is qualified to hold the post of Associate Professor as Nagpur University has granted equivalence. It is submitted that the Nagpur University has held that Ph.D. in Micro Biology is equivalent to Ph.D. in Medical Micro Biology. It is argued that considering the subject in which the petitioner completed his Ph.D. i.e. "Changing Trends in Multiple Drug Resistance and Genetic Characterization of Salmonella Type Typhi-A Medical Study", which according to him, is related to the subject of Medicine. It is further argued that even the Medical Council has also found the said qualification as equivalent to the qualification sought for by the Medical Council of India for appointment as Associate Professor. He, therefore, submits that the Tribunal has committed error in quashing and setting aside the order of promotion of the petitioner.
Judgment 5 WP620-2018.odt
9. It is further argued that the petitioner has got superannuated during the pendency of the present petition. It is further submitted that if the order of the Tribunal is upheld the degrees awarded to under graduate, post-graduate level students and also three M.D. students under him would vitiate. It is therefore, submitted that the judicial interference in the matter of eligibility criteria is not permissible as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anand Yadav and others. ..vs.. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , reported in (2021) 12 SCC
390.
10. Shri Anand Jaiswal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.5, on the other hand, strongly opposed the present petition and submits that no perversity is pointed out by the petitioner in the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. He submits that the decision as regards the equivalence shall be of the Medical Council of India and not of the Nagpur University. It is submitted that in the present matter, the equivalence, on which much emphasize is placed by the petitioner, was granted by the Registrar of the respondent-University, without jurisdiction. It is submitted that though the petitioner has submitted that Medical Council of India has granted equivalence but in fact there is no such equivalence granted by the Medical Council of India.
Judgment 6 WP620-2018.odt He, therefore, submits that since the petitioner is not qualified to be appointed as Associate Professor, in absence of qualification namely Ph.D. in Medical Micro Biology, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal.
11. Shri Damle, learned A.G.P. reiterates the submission of Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that on finding that the petitioner is qualified, the petitioner was promoted as Associate Professor. He submits that the qualification, petitioner possesses, is equivalent to the qualification sought by the Medical Council of India. He, therefore, submits that the order of the Tribunal, impugned in the present petition, is erroneous.
12. Shri Bhangde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Medical Council of India points out the decision of the Committee appointed by the Medical Council of India and submits that the Medical Council of India has acted as per the decision of the Committee which has held that the petitioner is eligible for promotion.
13. In light of the rival submissions, we have perused the record and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.
Judgment 7 WP620-2018.odt
14. Considering the rival contentions, it is evident that the question which arises in this petition is, whether the petitioner's qualification is equivalent to the qualification sought by the Medical Council of India for promotion to the post of Associate Professor in Department of Microbiology, Government Medical College?
15. Admittedly, the petitioner possesses M.Sc. (Micro Biology) and Ph.D. (Microbiology), whereas, as per the norms of the Medical Council of India, Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medial Institutions Regulations, 1998, the qualification for the teachers in medical institutions is M.Sc. (Med.cMicrobiology) with Ph.D. (Med. Microbiology)/ Ph.D. (Med. Bacteriology). As per the Regulation of 1998 for promotion to the post of Reader/ Associate Professor, the minimum qualification required is : (i) requisite recognized post-graduate qualification in the subject; and (ii) Five years teaching experience in the subject in recognized medical college as Assistant Professor/ Lecturer in Microbiology.
16. There is no dispute that the minimum qualification and teaching experience in various departments of Medical College and institutions imparting graduate and post-graduate medical education shall be as per the Medical Council of India Regulations 1998.
Judgment 8 WP620-2018.odt
17. Thus, considering the qualification, which the petitioner possesses and the qualification prescribed by the Medical Council of India there is no element of doubt that the petitioner does not have the same qualification as prescribed by the Medical Council of India. Therefore, the question of equivalence will arise.
18. The petitioner is placing much reliance upon the equivalence given by the Registrar of the Respondent-University. However, such equivalence is granted by the Medical Council of India and not by the Nagpur University, which cannot grant equivalence in this case.
19. The Medical Council of India in its reply before the Tribunal, particularly in paras 21 and 22, stated thus :
"(21). It is respectfully submitted that the letter dated 23/8/2001 received from DR.V.R. Shegaonkar, Lecturer in Microbiology, Govt.
Medical College, Nagpur through proper channel, was considered by the Teachers Eligibility Qualifications sub-committee of the council as its meeting held on 27/8/2001 and it was decided as under-
"The sub-committee noted from the letter of Dr. V.R. Shegokar forwarded by the Dean, Faculty of Medicine, University of Nagpur, that he obtained Ph.D. qualification in the subject of Microbiology which has been granted equivalence to Ph.D. in medical Microbiology by the Nagpur University since the work by Dr. Shegokar for the Ph.D. these was done under medical faculty in the department of Microbiology of SRTR Medical College, Ambajogai and Govt. Medical College, Nagpur.
The Committee further noted from the letter of Dean, Faculty of Medicine, Nagpur University that Dr. Shegokar has been a Lecturer in the subject of Microbiology at the recognized medical colleges namely SRTR Medical College, Ambajogai and Govt. Medical College, Nagpur during the period of his doctoral study during the period 1990 to 1999.
Judgment 9 WP620-2018.odt The Committee after detailed discussion in the matter, keeping in view that Dr. Shegokar has been a Lecturer for a period of 9 years, decided that Dr Shegokar may be considered, eligible for the promotion post of Reader/Associate Professor in the subject of Microbiology in the medical college.
The committee further decided that the promotion will be given effect to after the date of acquiring Ph.D. and further that he can be considered for the promotional posts of Professor only after he fulfils the requirement for this promotion as laid down in the applicable council Regulations Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998. ..."
20. From the above referred reply of the Medical Council of India it is evident that on receipt of the letter issued by the petitioner the Teachers Eligibility Qualification Sub-Committee considered the case of the petitioner in its meeting dated 27/08/2001. The ultimate conclusion of the Committee was that the petitioner may be considered eligible for the promotion on the post of Reader/ Associate Professor in the subject of Microbiology in the Medical College. It further says that the Committee further decided that the promotion will be given effect to after the date of acquiring Ph.D. However, the Tribunal on the basis of certain documents which were filed on record has observed thus :
"18. As regards the refusal of promotion to the applicant, it is stated that it was Ad-hoc promotion which could have been cancelled in any point of time and at that time the applicant was having 8 years experience post M.D. as a Lecturer. Whereas, the respondent no.5 at that time just had passed Ph.D. examination and was having no experience. The applicant in his rejoinder-affidavit has stated that the respondent nos 1 to 3 have suppressed material facts from the Tribunal. It is stated that the respondent no.2 vide recommendation dated 10/9/2001 had informed the respondent no.3 that since the respondent no.5 does not qualify for promotion considering his educational Judgment 10 WP620-2018.odt qualification, he was not fit for promotion. It is further stated that the respondent no.1 had also informed the respondent no.5 vide communication dated 20/8/2001 that he cannot be considered for promotion as Associate Professor. However, within a span of 4 months the State Government directed the respondent no.2 vide letter dated 24/12/2001 to submit a proposal to promote respondent no.5. All these relevant documents are placed on record along with rejoinder-affidavit.
19. Vide letter dated 4/12/2007 the applicant sought information under the RTI Act, 2005 from the MCI and a specific questions were posed such as to what is required educational qualification and experience for the post of Associate Professor in Microbiology on Ad- hoc basis as well as on permanent basis in Government Medical Colleges and whether the qualification in science faculty, i.e., M.Sc. (Microbiology) and Ph.D. (Microbiology) can be considered equivalent to qualifications in non Medical faculty, i.e., M.Sc. and Ph.D. in Medical Microbiology or Medical faculty, i.e. MBBS and MD in Microbiology and whether prior permission was sought from MCI for appointment of respondent no.5 as Associate Professor In response to this application, the MCI has informed to the applicant vide letter dated 4/1/2008 that the minimum qualification for Teachers Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 for the post of Reader/ Associate Professor in Microbiology is M.D. (Microbiology) and Ph.D. (Medical Microbiology). It was intimated that a person having qualification in science faculty is not eligible and qualified. It was also intimated to the applicant that prior permission was not sought from MCI by the Secretary of Medical Education and Drugs Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai or by the Director of Medical Education & Research, Government of Maharashtra for promotion of Dr. V.R. Shegokar.
20. The learned counsel for the applicant also invited my attention to document filed along with rejoinder-affidavit dated 10/9/2001. This letter was written by the Director Medical Education & Research, Mumbai to the Dean, Government Medical College, Nagpur. The said letter is self explanatory and vide said letter is it Intimated as under :-
^^izpfyr lsokizos'k fu;ekoyh uqlkj lg;ksxh izk/;kid] lq{etho'kkL«k ;k inklkBh ,e-Mh- ¼esMhdy ek;Øks½ ;k cjkscj ,e-,l-lh- ¼esMhdy ek;Øks½ ohFk ih,pMh ¼esMhdy ek;Øks½@,e-,l-lh- ¼esMhdy ek;Øks½ ohFk Mh-,l-lh- ¼esMhdy ek;Øks½ ;k 'kS{kf.kd vgZrsph rjrqn vkgs- ek= dkgh vf/kO;k[;krk ih-,p-Mh- gh inoh esMhdy QWdYVhrwu ¼oS|dh; 'kk[ksrwu½ u djrk lk;Ul QWdYVhrwu d#u ofj"B inklkBh inksUurhph ekx.kh djrkr- ek= lsokizos'k fu;ekoyhr r'kh rjrqn ulY;keqGs R;kapk inksUurhlkBh fopkj djrk ;sr ukgh-
lcc] ih-,p-Mh- gh inoh esMhdy ek;Øks ¼oS|dh; 'kk[ksrwu½ o ih-,p-Mh- gh inoh lk;Ul QWdYVh ¼foKku 'kk[ksrwu½ ;k nksUghgh inO;k ,desdka'kh lerqY; vkgsr fdaok dls ? ;kckcr 'kklukekQZr Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"knsdMwu ekXkZn'kZu ekxfo.;kr vkysys gksrs- ek= Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"knsus mDr izdj.kh R;kaP;k i= Ø- ,elhvk;&12@2001&esM@12501] fnukad Judgment 11 WP620-2018.odt 12@7@2001 vUo;s 'kklukl vls dGfoys vkgs dh] Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"knsP;k /kksj.kkRed fu.kZ;kuqlkj vfpfdRlky;hu fo"k;krhy oS|dh; egkfo|ky;krhy v/;kidh; fu;qDrh djhrk ,e-,l-lh vkf.k ih-,p-Mh- g;k inO;k esMhdy QWdYVhrwup ¼oS|dh; 'kk[ksrwu½ izkIr dj.ks vko';d vkgs-
MkW- fo-jk-'ksxksdkj ;kauh /kkj.k dsysyh ih-,p-Mh gh inoh ¼oS|dh; 'kk[ksrwu½ dsysyh ulY;kus R;kaP;k lg;ksxh izk/;kd] lq{etho'kkL= ;k inkoj inksUurhlkBh fopkj djrk ;s.kkj ukgh] vls R;kauk dGfo.;kr ;kos-
Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"knsus R;kaP;k fnukad 12@7@2001 P;k i=kUo;s ?ksrysyk gk fu.kZ; 'kklukus MkW- fo-jk-'ksxksdkj ;kauk lanHkhZ; i=kOnkjs dGfoysyk vlY;keqGs R;kauk ;k i=kph izr Lora=fjR;k ns.;kph vko';drk ukgh-"
21 The learned counsel for the applicant also invited my attention to one letter dated 20/8/2001 issued by the Desk Officer, Government of Maharashtra to respondent no.5. In the said letter it was specifically stated as under:
^^fo"k;kadhr izdj.kh vkiY;k lanHkkZfdr fuosnukP;k vuq"kaxkus dGfo.;kr ;srs dh] Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"knsP;k ¼MCI½ /kksj.kkRed fu.kZ;kuqlkj 'kkldh; oS|dh; egkfo|ky;krhy vfpfdRlky;hu fo"k;krhy ¼Non Clinical Subject½ v/;kidkaph fu;qDrh dj.;klkBh lnj v/;kidkaph M.Sc. vkf.k Ph.D. gh 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk oS|dh; 'kk[ksrhy ¼Medical faculty½ vl.ks vko';d vlY;kps MCI us fnukad 12@7@2001 P;k i=k}kjs dGfoys vkgs- ¼izr layXu½ MCI P;k mijksDr /kksj.kkRed fu.kZ; igkrk vkiyh lg;ksXkh izk/;kid] lq{etho'kkL= inkojhy inksUurhckcrph fouarh ekU; djrk ;sr ukgh-**
22. In spite such intimation given to the respondent no.5 and in spite the fact that the applicant's claim for promotion to the post of Associate Professor was rejected on 20/8/2001, the Government of Maharashtra again directed Director of Medical Education and Research, Mumbai vide letter dated 24/12/2001 to submit fresh proposal for promotion of respondent no.5 as per document no.5 tiled along with rejoinder- affidavit at P.B. page no.101 it is not known as to what new facts have been brought to the notice of respondent no. 1 so that it was compelled to direct the Director of Directorate of Medical obtained by respondent no 5 seems to be doubtful and it is really surprising as to how such equivalence can be granted by the Registrar of the University when the Regulations of 1993 clearly prescribed the minimum qualification required for the post of Associate Professor and as per said regulations for appointment of Associate Professor in Microbiology, the minimum qualification required is M.Sc. (Microbiology) with Ph.D. (Microbiology) in medical faculty. It is therefore surprising as to how the Registrar of the University can grant equivalence to a degree which is not provided in the Regulations of 1998 even when the Government, has already stated vide letter dated 20/8/2001 that Ph.D. degree for promotion must be from medical faculty and on the same ground the request for promotion for Associate Professor by respondent no.5 was rejected." (Emphasis supplied) Judgment 12 WP620-2018.odt
21. Thus, considering the above referred discussion made by the Tribunal in appreciation of the documents produced on record, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the petitioner is not qualified, does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. Whenever the question of maintaining standard of education arises, the Court should be slow in deciding the equivalence and it should be left at the wisdom of the experts in the field. The Tribunal has therefore, rightly considered the opinions expressed by the Competent Authorities in the said field and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is not qualified.
22. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has got superannuated and because of dismissal of this petition, there is every likelihood that the respondents may initiate recovery against the petitioner.
23. In view of the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to deal with this issue, whether such recovery is permissible.
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Man Singh .. vs.. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. , reported in 2022 SCC Judgment 13 WP620-2018.odt OnLine SC 726, has observed that even if the appointment was irregular, since the appellant in the said case had discharged the duties and in lieu of the duties, he had to be paid. It is further observed that the State cannot take any work from any employee without payment of salary.
25. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Thomas Daniel ...vs... State of Kerala and Ors . (Civil Appeal No.7115 of 2010), vide judgment dated 02/05/2022, has observed that excess amount if any paid, not because of any misrepresentation or fraud, is not recoverable.
26. In the circumstances, we do not find any substance in the apprehension of the petitioner, as the law is very clear in this regard.
27. In the circumstances, we hold that the salary paid to the petitioner for the work done by the petitioner as 'Principal', is not recoverable as a consequence of dismissal of this petition.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
( RAJ D. WAKODE, J ) (ANIL S. KILOR, J )
RRaut..
Signed by: Raut (RR)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/02/2026 14:49:22