Bombay High Court
Prof. Ajay Ashok Bhosale vs Deola Education Society Thru Its ... on 11 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:10509
WP-12591-2023 (f).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12591 OF 2023
Prof. Ajay Ashok Bhosale ...Petitioner
Versus
Deola Education Society and Others ...Respondents
------------
Mr. Suresh Pakale, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Nilesh Desai for Petitioner.
Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, Mr. Aniket Kanawade for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for Respondent-State.
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Reserved on : 26th November, 2025.
Pronounced on : 11th December, 2025.
Judgment :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with consent.
2. The present Petition impugns the judgment dated 11th August, 2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, Savitribai Phule, Pune, Shivaji and Solapur University and College Tribunal, Pune University Campus, Pune
- 7 [for short, "the College Tribunal"] dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner arising out of the termination order of 31 st July, 2020 passed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Management.
3. The facts necessary to be exposited are that the Petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in commerce faculty in Sairaj 1 of 17 WP-12591-2023 (f).odt Respondent No. 2-College vide appointment order of 22 nd July, 2019 on probation for period of one year. The Petitioner joined the services of Respondent No. 2-College on 1st August, 2019. On 13th September, 2019, the Respondent No. 2 College issued notice dated 13 th August, 2019 stating that upon complaints being received from the students that they are unable to understand the accountancy subject taught by the Petitioner, the assigned subject came to be changed and despite thereof there is no improvement. The notice called upon the Petitioner to improve his performance and to ensure that the students do not suffer academically. On 21st June, 2020, the Petitioner responded complaining about harassment being caused by reason of issuance of notice dated 13th August, 2019. On 26th June, 2020, another notice was issued by Respondent No. 2 referring to the earlier notice of 13 th September, 2019, and stating there is no improvement in the Petitioner's work as there are still complaints received from the students and that the Petitioner is incapable of discharging his duties as a teacher. It was further stated that since 22 nd June, 2020, the Petitioner has, without consent and without prior notice, gone on leave which amounts to misconduct. By the said communication, the Petitioner was called upon to remain present within 24 hours and to submit an explanation. On 1st July, 2020, the Respondent submitted an explanation stating that the management is continuously calling upon Sairaj 2 of 17 WP-12591-2023 (f).odt him to resign by reason of which he is under tremendous mental pressure. On the same date, there was another reply stating that the Petitioner has resumed services on 1 st July, 2020 at 7:15 a.m. Subsequently, by the order of termination dated 31 st July, 2020, the services of the Petitioner came to be terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work, which decision had been taken in the resolution passed by management on 28th July, 2020 by payment of one month wages in lieu of notice period.
4. The termination came to be challenged before the College Tribunal and the impugned order holds that the termination order dated 31st July, 2020 was not stigmatic or punitive but simple termination on the ground of unsatisfactory performance, which did not require any inquiry to be conducted. The contention of defect in the constitution of committee under Statute 420(4) was answered by the College Tribunal holding that the management had appointed a committee consisting of two experts in the subject. It observed that due to COVID-19 pandemic, though the management sought approval of Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune for approval, there was no response compelling the management to proceed with the assessment in view of probation period. It observed that the management's decision is based on the committee's report which cannot be said to be arbitrary and dismissed the Appeal. Hence, the present Petition.
Sairaj 3 of 17
WP-12591-2023 (f).odt
5. Mr. Pakale, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Petitioner has taken this Court through the contents of notice dated 26 th June, 2020 to contend that the notice clearly alleges misconduct and therefore, the termination order is stigmatic. He would further submit that harassment meted out to the Petitioner finds place in the Petitioner's response of 1st July, 2020. Pointing out to Statute 417, he submits that the teacher is deemed to be confirmed upon expiry of period of probation unless after the assessment by the committee, his services are terminated. He submits that Statute 420 governs the assessment of teacher's work and 420(4) provides for the committee to include two experts to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor. He submits that the experts forming part of the committee were not nominated by the Vice Chancellor and there is defect in the constitution which vitiates the termination. He would further submit that the College Tribunal has failed to render any findings on the defect in constitution of committee. Mr. Pakale would submit that Statute 417 and 420 uses the term "shall" which demonstrates its mandatory nature. In support, he relies upon following decisions:-
V P Ahuja v. State of Punjab1 Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satvendra Nath Bose 1 2000 AIR(SC) 1080.
2 2000 (5) SCC 152.
Sairaj 4 of 17
WP-12591-2023 (f).odt
National Centre for Basic SC3
6. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that notice of 26th June, 2020 was only a memo issued to the Petitioner calling upon him to improve his performance and termination order dated 31st July, 2020, is non-stigmatic. He would point out paragraph 33 of the impugned order to demonstrate the finding of the College Tribunal on the submission of defect in the committee's constitution. He submits that the assessment is required to be done by the Principal and the committee considers the assessment report for the purposes laid down in Statute 420(1). He submits that the committee was constituted during Covid-19 pandemic and approval though sought was not responded. He submits that the committee has considered the assessment report and found the Petitioner's services to be unsatisfactory and hence, he was not continued in the service. In support, he relies upon following decisions :
Gramin Yuvak Vikas Shikshan Mandal Kinhi Naik, Buldhana v. Shivnarayan Datta Raut4 Sushind Kisan Rathod v Rajashree Shahu Science College, Chandur Railway5
7. I have perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 3 1999 (3) SCC 60.
4 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1079.
5 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1679.
Sairaj 5 of 17
WP-12591-2023 (f).odt
8. The present case gives rise to two issues : (a) Whether the termination order dated 31st July, 2020 is stigmatic and punitive necessitating inquiry before the termination can be ordered; and (b) Whether there was any defect in constitution of the committee under Statute 420(4), which would have the consequence of vitiating the termination order itself.
9. On the second issue, one of the submissions canvassed was that the College Tribunal has failed to render any finding on defect in the Committee's Constitution. The discussion on the said submission can be found in paragraph 33 of the impugned order where the College Tribunal has held that the management was constrained to proceed with the assessment of the Petitioner through the appointed committee as due to COVID-19 pandemic, though correspondence was made with the University for approval, there was no response. The College Tribunal has dealt with the submission and accepted the Committee's Constitution by reason of inaction of the University.
10. Coming to the issue as regards the true nature of the termination order, the same reads thus in Marathi:
"संस्थेव्दारा संचालित कर्मवीर रामरावजी आहेर कला, विज्ञान व वाणिज्य महाविद्यालय, देवळा ता.देवळा जि.नाशिक येथे परिवीक्षाधीन म्हणून नियुक्त असलेले सहाय्यक प्राध्यापक (वाणिज्य) श्री.भोसले अजय अशोक यांचे परिवीक्षाधीन कालावधीतील कामकाज समाधानकारक नसल्यामुळे त्यांची सेवा दिनांक ३१ जुलै २०२० रोजी महाविद्यालयाच्या कामकाजाची वेळ संपल्यानंतर समाप्त करण्यात येत आहे."
Sairaj 6 of 17
WP-12591-2023 (f).odt
11. The translation of the order in English would read as under:
"The services of Shri Ajay Ashok Bhosale appointed on probation as Assistant Professor (Commerce) with Karamveer Ramravji Aher, Arts, Commerce and Science College, Devla, Tal: Devla, Dist: Nasik which is run by the Society, having being found to be unsatisfactory during probation period, is terminated w.e.f 31st July, 2020 from the close of the working hours."
12. The termination order simpliciter terminates the services of the Petitioner on the ground of unsatisfactory performance. The order makes reference to the date of appointment and the decision taken by the management in its management committee meeting held on 28 th July, 2020. The termination order makes no reference to the earlier notices issued to the Petitioner and imputes no allegation of misconduct. It is well-settled that a probationer does not have any legal right to demand confirmation of probation and if the employer finds performance to be unsatisfactory, the employer has right to take decision not to extend the services of the probationer and services can be terminated.
13. In case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta6, the Hon'ble Apex Court held in Paragraph No. 22 as under:-
"22. If findings were arrived at in an enquiry as to misconduct, behind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as "founded" on the allegations and will be bad. But if the enquiry was not held, no findings were arrived at and the employer was not inclined to conduct an enquiry but, at the 6 AIR 1999 SC 983.
Sairaj 7 of 17
WP-12591-2023 (f).odt
same time, he did not want to continue the employee against whom there were complaints, it would only be a case of motive and the order would not be bad. Similar is the position if the employer did not want to enquire into the truth of the allegations because of delay in regular departmental proceedings or he was doubtful about securing adequate evidence. In such a circumstance, the allegations would be a motive and not the foundation and the simple order of termination would be valid."
14. In the case of Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P. 7, the Hon'ble Apex Court developed the concept of 'motive' and 'foundation' and held in Paragraph Nos. 28 and 29 as under:-
"28. The important principles which are deducible on the concept of "motive" and "foundation", concerning a probationer, are that a probationer has no right to hold the post and his services can be terminated at any time during or at the end of the period of probation on account of general unsuitability for the post in question. If for the determination of suitability of the probationer for the post in question or for his further retention in service or for confirmation, an inquiry is held and it is on the basis of that inquiry that a decision is taken to terminate his service, the order will not be punitive in nature. But, if there are allegations of misconduct and an inquiry is held to find out the truth of that misconduct and an order terminating the service is passed on the basis of that inquiry, the order would be punitive in nature as the inquiry was held not for assessing the general suitability of the employee for the post in question, but to find out the truth of allegations of misconduct against that employee. In this situation, the order would be founded on misconduct and it will not be a mere matter of "motive".
(Emphasis supplied).
29. "Motive" is the moving power which impels action for a definite result, or to put it differently, "motive" is that which incites or stimulates a person to do an act. An order terminating the services of an employee is an act done by the employer. What is that factor which impelled the employer to take this action? If it was the factor of general unsuitability of the employee for the post held by him, the action would be upheld in law. If, however, there were allegations of serious misconduct 7 (2000) 5 SCC 152.
Sairaj 8 of 17
WP-12591-2023 (f).odt
against the employee and a preliminary inquiry is held behind his back to ascertain the truth of those allegations and a termination order is passed thereafter, the order, having regard to other circumstances, would be founded on the allegations of misconduct which were found to be true in the preliminary inquiry."
15. In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh8, the Hon'ble Apex Court summarised the entire gamut of law on the aspect of stigmatic termination re-iterating the well settled principles on the subject. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the probationer is terminated from services owing to misconduct as a punishment, the termination would cast a stigma on him. If a probationer is unsuitable for a job and terminated, then such a case is non-stigmatic as the case is termination simplicitor. The Hon'ble Apex Court noted the decision in the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta (supra) and held in Paragraph Nos. 57 and 57.1 as under:-
"57. In Dipti Prakash Banerjee [Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, (1999) 3 SCC 60 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 596] , this Court inter alia, considered the following points:
"18. ... (1) In what circumstances, termination of a probationer's services can be said to be founded on misconduct and in what circumstances could it be said that the allegations were only a motive?
(2) When can an order of termination of a probationer be said to contain an express stigma?
(3) Can the stigma be gathered by referring back to 8 2025 (9) SCC 297.
Sairaj 9 of 17
WP-12591-2023 (f).odt
proceedings referred to in the termination order?"
57.1. Each of the aforesaid points were answered which can be summarised as under: (Dipti Prakash Banerjee [Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences (supra) "Point 1: If findings were arrived at in an enquiry as to misconduct, behind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as "founded" on the allegations and will be bad. But if the enquiry was not held, no findings were arrived at and the employer was not inclined to conduct an enquiry but at the same time, he did not want to continue the employee against whom there were complaints, it would only be a case of motive and the order would not be bad. Similar is the position if the employer did not want to enquire into the truth of the allegations because of delay in regular departmental proceedings or he was doubtful about securing adequate evidence. In such a circumstance, the allegations would be motive and not the foundation and the simple order of termination would be valid.
*** Point 2: There is considerable difficulty in finding out whether in a given case where the order of termination is not a simple order of termination, the words used in the order can be said to contain a 'stigma'. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and language or words used to ascertain whether termination order contains stigma.
*** Point 3: Material which amounts to stigma need not be contained in termination order of a probationer but might be contained in documents referred to in the termination order or in its annexures. Such documents can be asked for, or called for, by any future employer of the probationer. In such a case, employee's interests would be harmed and therefore termination order would stand vitiated on the ground that no regular enquiry was conducted.
(emphasis supplied).
16. Mr. Pakale's reliance on the notice dated 26 th June, 2020, to contend that the termination is on the basis of finding of misconduct is misplaced as neither the Committee's report nor the termination order Sairaj 10 of 17 WP-12591-2023 (f).odt is linked to the notice of 26th June, 2020. The notice dated 26th June, 2020 brings the unsatisfactory performance to the notice of the Petitioner calling upon the Petitioner to improve his performance. The notice further states that the Petitioner's absenteeism without consent and without prior intimation amounts to misconduct and calls upon the Petitioner to resume duties within 24 hours. The mere mention of the word misconduct in the notice of 26 th June, 2020, which is not even referred to in the termination order, does not constitute the foundation for the termination order. The notice of 26 th June, 2020 did not result in any inquiry or any findings of misconduct. The notice was not carried further and the Petitioner was permitted to resume his services.
17. Perusal of the report of the Committee would indicate that the Committee considered the assessment done by the Principal, the complaints by the students and the notice dated 13th September, 2019 and 15th January, 2020. The Committee upon deliberation came to a finding that the Petitioner is unable to teach the assigned subjects which can be deduced from the complaints received from the students. It noted that most of the students are from rural areas suffering from financial and social handicap and it is necessary to impart education in a manner which will be understood by the students. The committee considered that the Petitioner has not improved his performance Sairaj 11 of 17 WP-12591-2023 (f).odt despite notice and in view of the unsatisfactory performance being unsatisfactory, the services cannot be continued. Pertinently, the report of the Committee makes no mention of the notice dated 26 th June, 2020 which according to Mr. Pakale imputed misconduct. The students complaints, even if considered by the Committee, was for the purpose of assessing the suitability of the Petitioner for continuation of his services as Assistant Professor and constituted the motive for termination. Perusal of the committee's report would indicate that the unsatisfactory performance by reason of inability of Petitioner to teach the subjects assigned to him resulted in the order of termination.
18. Applying the well-settled principles re-iterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarita Chaudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (supra), in my view, the termination was not a punishment for misconduct but was by reason of unsatisfactory performance and therefore cannot be termed as stigmatic or punitive.
19. Dealing with the next issue of defect in the formation of the committee, Statute 417 and 420 reads as under:
"Statute 417. Probation:
1. The period of probation of the teacher shall in no case be more than 24 months, on the expiry of which he will be deemed to be confirmed unless after assessment of this work by the Committee, his services are terminated by giving him one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu of notice.
2. The Principal of the conducted College or the Head of the University Department concerned shall maintain Assessment Reports of the teacher on probations in the performa Sairaj 12 of 17 WP-12591-2023 (f).odt prescribed for the purpose by the Vice-Chancellor, for every six month, and complete it at the end of each term of academic year. The Principal of the conducted College or the Head of the University Department under whom the teacher is working shall send to the Registrar at least two months before the date of expiry the period of probation, his assessment report with definite recommendations for confirmation in service or otherwise. In case the teacher appointed on probation for a period of less than 24 months is not to be confirmed at the end of his probationary period or his probationary period is to be extended, a confidential report justifying the decision should be attached and such cases be referred to the Vice- Chancellor for further instruction. The Executive Council shall be the deciding authority in these cases. In the case of teachers of Affiliated Colleges, the Principal will maintain Assessment Reports in a similar manner and forward the recommendations to the Chairman, Governing Body for further instructions. The Governing Body shall be the deciding authority in these cases.
Statute 420. Assessment of Teachers Work:
1. In order to evaluate the work of the teacher, he should prepare an out-line of his academic programme in consultation with the Head of the Department at the beginning of a session and then at the end of the academic year prepare a report of the work done by him which should be submitted to the Head of the University Department/Principal/Head of the Recognized Institution by the end of the year.
In addition, the Assessment Report of the teachers shall be maintained by the Head of the University Department/Principal/Head of the Recognized Institution for the following purposes:
(a) For evaluation of six monthly report during the period of probation.
(b) For confirmation in service.
(c) For Assessment at the time of crossing Assessment Bar in pay scales.
(d) For consideration at the time of interview for a higher post.
(e) Once every three years for determining whether the teacher continues to take his work seriously.
(f) On other occasions when required for specific purposes.
2. The adverse remarks as well as remarks of appreciation of any outstanding work shall be brought to the notice of the person concerned by Head of the University Department/Principal or Vice- Chancellor/Chairman, Governing Body in the case of Heads of University Departments/Principals with a view to making improvement in the work, by the person concerned, if the report is adverse.
Sairaj 13 of 17
WP-12591-2023 (f).odt
3. The assessment report referred to above shall be made by the persons indicated hereinbelow on the recommendations of the immediate Head under whom the member of the staff is working:
Assessing Person to be assessed
Authority
(i) Vice Chancellor Head of the
University
Department
/Principal of the
conducted College.
(ii) Head of the University The teacher working
Department and Principal in the Department -
of conducted college- Conducted College
concerned.
Iii) Chairman, Governing Principal of Affiliated
Body College/Head of
Recognized
Institution.
(iv) Principal of Affiliated Head of the
College/ Head of Department
Recognized Institution College/Recognized
Institution.
(v) Principal/Head of The Teacher in the
Recognized Institution in Department of
consultation with the Affiliated
Heads of the Departments College/Recognized
in the Affiliated Institution
Colleges/Recognized
Institutions respectively.
4. The Committee consisting of the following members shall consider the Assessment Report for various purposes laid down in Statute 420 (1) and will also recommend the crossing of the Assessment Bar in the case of the teacher.
(a) University Department:
(i) the Vice-Chancellor.
(ii) the Head of the University Department/expert in the subject nominated by the Chancellor.
(iii) the nominee of the Executive Council.
(b) Conducted College:
(i) the Vice-Chancellor.
(ii) Principal of the College concerned.
Sairaj 14 of 17
WP-12591-2023 (f).odt
(c) Affiliated College/Recognized Institution:
(i) the Chairman, Governing Body or his nominee.
(ii) the Principal of the College concerned/Head of the Recognized Institution.
(iii) the Head of the Department in the subjects, if any, or an expert in the subject nominated by the Chairman/Governing Body.
(iv) Two experts in the subject nominated by the Vice-
Chancellor.
However, in case where assessment of the Head of the Department/Principal/Head of the Institution is concerned, in place of the Head of the Department/Principal/Head of Institution, the words "an outside expert nominated by the Competent Authority" be substituted.
5. On the recommendation of the Committee referred to above the Executive Council/Governing Body shall permit the teacher to cross the Assessment Bar in the scale prescribed. If the report is adverse, he will not cross the Assessment Bar till the authorities concerned recommend that he be permitted to cross the Assessment Bar."
20. Statute 417 provides for deemed confirmation of probationer unless after assessment of the work by committee, his services are terminated. Statute 420(3) provides for assessment report to be made by the Principal/Head of Recognized Institution in consultation with the heads of the departments in the affiliated colleges/recognized institutions respectively. The assessment report is thereafter required to be considered by the committee constituted as per Statute 420(4).
21. The Statute provides for the assessment to be done by the Principal and the committee is entrusted with the task of considering the assessment report for the purpose of Statute 420(1). I have perused the report of the Committee annexed at Page No. 178 of the Petition. The Committee included two outside experts in the subject Sairaj 15 of 17 WP-12591-2023 (f).odt from District - Nashik and the composition of Committee is in conformity with Statute 420(4). The defect alleged is that the two experts in the Committee were required to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor which was not done. It is not disputed that the Petitioner's assessment was done during the Covid-19 pandemic as his probation period was to end on 31 st July, 2020. The impugned order records that approval was sought from the University for appointment of the experts to which there was no response. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had therefore taken due steps for formation of the committee as provided by Statute 420(4) and as there was no response to the approval request by the University, the management proceeded with the constituted committee. It needs to be noted that the consequence of delaying the assessment by the committee would have resulted in deemed confirmation of the Petitioner at the end of his probation period, in view of Statute 417(1).
22. The committee has considered the Petitioner's assessment report in detail and there is no submission canvassed to demonstrate that the failure of the Vice Chancellor to approve the name of the experts on the committee has caused prejudice to the Petitioner. Considering the material on record, it cannot be said that the nomination of the experts by the Vice Chancellor would have resulted in different conclusion. The doctrine of useless formality would apply Sairaj 16 of 17 WP-12591-2023 (f).odt in the present case as remanding the matter only for the purpose of getting experts nominated by the University would lead to the same conclusion. It would have been a different aspect if the termination was stigmatic or punitive in which case, each and every procedural requirement was required to be meticulously followed. In the present case, as the termination has not been held to be stigmatic or punitive and no prejudice is being shown to have been caused by reason of the University not having granted approval to two outside experts, the assessment report is not vitiated and resultantly, the termination order has been rightly passed.
23. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in the decisions relied upon by Mr. Pakale, however, its application to the facts of the present case does not assist the case of the Petitioner.
24. In light of the above discussion, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 11th August, 2023 in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, Petition fails and stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Sairaj 17 of 17