Dr. Avinash Mukund Asnare vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary for Higher and Technical Education Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:324-DB This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

¶2

1 wp3816.2024. speak.docx

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3816 OF 2024

¶5

Dr. Avinash Mukund Asnare, Age @ 53 yrs, Occ. Service, (Director of Sports & Physical Education S.G.B.A.U. Amravati University, Amravati) R/o. Budhwara, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. ..... PETITIONER

¶6

...V E R S U S...

¶7

The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary for Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The State of Maharashtra through is Secretary for Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 3. The Director of Higher Technical Education, State of Maharashtra, Pune

¶8

The Joint Director of Higher Education, Amravati Region, Amravati

¶9

The Registrar Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University, Amravti, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. .....RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate with Mr. S.M. Vaishnav, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Patil, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4/State. Ms. Gauri Venkatraman, Advocate for respondent No. 5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- ANIL S. KILOR, & RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ.

¶10

Belkhede, PS

¶11

This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

¶12

2 wp3816.2024. speak.docx

¶13

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 24.12.2025 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 07.01.2026

¶14

JUDGMENT ( PER : RAJNISH R. VYAS )

¶15

Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

¶16

A prayer made in this petition is regarding quashing of Government Resolution dated 16.4.2024 and communication dated 10.11.2023 to the extent it rejects proposal for sanctioning the post of Director of Sports and Physical Education with retrospective effect by duly amending GR dated 22.2.2007 and further it directs the post to be filled in by way of fresh recruitment. Other consequential prayers are also made.

¶17

The petitioner was initially appointed as Full Time Physical

¶18

Education Teacher, in the year 1995 and the approval to said appointment was accorded on 12.2.1995.

¶19

On 29.3.2000, respondent No. 5 University issued an

¶20

advertisement for one post of Director of Sports and Physical Education

¶21

Belkhede, PS

¶22

This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

¶23

3 wp3816.2024. speak.docx

¶24

(DOPE) in open category. In the said advertisement, it was mentioned that the employee shall be entitled to pensionary benefit as per rules of Government of Maharashtra. In an advertisement, even the subjects for which professors, readers and lecturers and post thereof were also mentioned.

¶25

According to the petitioner, in respect of Amravati University, the post of DOPE was sanctioned since its establishment and one Mr. V.M. Sharma had retired from the said post, who is receiving pension from the State Government.

¶26

In pursuance with the advertisement, the petitioner applied and further appeared for interview on 18.8.2000. The committee was duly constituted and one Mr. T.D. Mudliyar was present during course of recruitment as a Joint Director of Higher Education, thereby duly representing the respondent No.1. The recommendation made by the Selection Committee were signed by the said person, so also, the Vice Chancellor of Amravati University.

¶27

Belkhede, PS

¶28

This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

¶29

4 wp3816.2024. speak.docx

¶30

On 15.12.2000, as per recommendation, the petitioner was

¶31

appointed on the post of DOSPE, who joined his services on 2.1.2001. It was contended that in appointment order, it was clearly mentioned that expenditure on account of salary and allowances of the services rendered by the petitioner shall be admissible from the State Government grant. Even, yearly increments were duly awarded by respondent No. 5 which were approved by office of respondent No. 3.

¶32

In the month of August 2013, without there being any reason the petitioner was not paid salary and after due representation, he came to know that State Government had issued a Circular dated 22.2.2007 thereby sanctioning total number of teaching posts in respondent No. 5 University. However, in the said Circular erroneously, the post of DOSPE was not incorporated as duly sanctioned teaching post.

¶33

Since dissatisfied, the respondent No. 4 University submitted proposal dated 23.1.2013 to respondent No.1 with request to the Government to incorporate one post of DOSPE in the total number

¶34

Belkhede, PS

¶35

This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

¶36

5 wp3816.2024. speak.docx

¶37

of non-vacation teaching post as per GR dated 22.2.2007.

¶38

Along with the said proposal, communication dated 11.1.2013, issued by office of Joint Director of Higher Education, Amravati Region, Amravati was also submitted pointing out that due to erroneous non sanctioning of post, financial difficulties have cropped up.

¶39

The University then submitted several reminders to respondent No.1 to modify the staff justification, but no action was taken. Even benefits of 7^th Pay Commission were denied to the petitioner on the ground that same would be made applicable only after sanction is received from the State Government.

¶40

Corrected as per Court’s order dated 2.2.2026 in CAW 232 of 2026

¶41

Refusal to extend benefits of 7^th Pay Commission resulted into filing of Writ Petition No. 1021/2020 by the petitioner before this Court. The said petition came to be disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to assail the order passed by the Government since during pendency of same the learned AGP stated that the decision had been

¶42

Belkhede, PS

¶43

This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

¶44

6 wp3816.2024. speak.docx

¶45

taken on the issue raised by the petitioner in petition and same would be communicated to the petitioner within period of two weeks.

¶46

It was informed vide communication dated 22.3.2021 that proposal was rejected by the respondent advancing a reason that the post of DOSPE cannot be made permanent. The communication dated 22.3.2021 was taken exception to in Writ Petition No. 2157/2021. In the said petition, respondent No. 5 University, had taken the stand by filing affidavit on record that the appointment of the petitioner was made after following due process of law and there exists sufficient workload and necessity. On 26.6.2023, this Court disposed of the petition No. 2157/2021, directing respondent No.1 therein (Secretary for Higher and Technical Education Department) to reconsider the proposal which was submitted by the University seeking permission and approval to have the post of DOSPE by granting opportunity to the petitioner as well as the University to place before the authority all relevant documents in that regard. It was further directed that respondent No.1 therein after considering totality of the fact shall take fresh decision on the aforesaid proposal.

¶47

Belkhede, PS

¶48

This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

¶49

7 wp3816.2024. speak.docx

¶50

It is further contended by the petitioner that the proposal had highlighted various aspects and it was also pointed out that the post of DOSPE is a statutory post as per Section 24 of Maharashtra Public Universities Act.

¶51

The petitioner further submitted that the University had also communicated that total amount of expenses which Government would incur from May 2011 till March 2017 would be Rs. 22790704/-.

¶52

As the judgment dated 26.2.2023 was not complied with, the petitioner was compelled to file Contempt Petition No. 342/2023 and the Court vide its order 13.2.2024, directed that in case, compliance is not done by 26.2.2026, the Court shall be constrained to direct personal presence of Secretary (Finance) before the Court.

¶53

The petitioner submitted that on 16.4.2024, impugned communication was passed by the respondent No.1 in form of Government Resolution by which though the post of Director of Sports

¶54

Belkhede, PS

¶55

This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

¶56

8 wp3816.2024. speak.docx

¶57

and Physical Education was sanctioned, it was done from date of Government Resolution, with further direction that it be filled in, by way of fresh recruitment after following due process of law.

¶58

Narrating the aforesaid facts, learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr Kulkarni advanced the argument that the impugned Government Resolution is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide. He states that principles of fair-play and legitimate expectation are totally ignored by the respondent while sanctioning the post from the date of Government Resolution i.e. 16.4.2024 and filling the same by way of recruitment.

¶59

He submits that he was appointed on the post of DOSPE, which was sanctioned post and which was duly advertised also. Since he was duly qualified and eligible, he applied and selected by the Selection Committee duly constituted. According to him, he has been occupying the said post since the year 2000 and was paid salary and yearly increments also. Since, the post of DOSPE was sanctioned since the establishment of Amravati University and since he was appointed on the said post he was legitimately expecting that the said post was duly

¶60

Belkhede, PS

¶61

This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

¶62

9 wp3816.2024. speak.docx

¶63

sanctioned by the State Government as a permanent teaching post and he would be entitled for all the service benefits from Government like other teaching staff.

¶64

In order to buttress his contention, he submitted that perusal

¶65

of advertisement would reveal that copy of same was provided to the office of University Grants Commission, State of Maharashtra and to the Hon’ble Chancellor also. He further submitted that one Mr. V.N. Sharma who has retired from the post of Director of Physical Education is receiving pension from the State Government. He therefore, submits that there was absolutely no reason for the Government to sanction the post from the date of Government Resolution and filling the same by way of recruitment. He submits that since his appointment was after complying due process of law, he has rendered his services on the said post since the year 2000 and citing case of V.N. Sharma who retired from the said post, clearly entitles him to claim the relief under the umbrella of legitimate expectation.

¶66

Per contra, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1,2,3 and 4

¶67

Belkhede, PS

¶68

This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

¶69

10 wp3816.2024. speak.docx

¶70

submitted that the Government Resolution was rightly issued and there is no question of petitioner being entitle for the reliefs by applying principle of legitimate expectation. So far as case of Mr. V.N. Sharma is concerned, it was submitted by the respondents that Mr. Sharma was appointed by the University on the post of DOSPE in Amravati University since 1984 on the basis of Government communications dated 7.12.1983 and 21.7.1984. According to the learned AGP the University without any authorization continued Mr. Sharma beyond the period of one year. The said continuation of Mr. Sharma till his retirement was also against Government communications and therefore, rule of parity cannot be made applicable. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 contended that in staffing pattern of 2007, the post was not created, however, the Government had issued the order of creation of new post of DOSPE as per mandate of Maharashtra Public University Act, 2016 from the date of issuance of resolution dated 16.4.2024. In the said Government Resolution, it is also stated that University should follow the recruitment procedure for the post of DOSPE for which the sanction was accorded. According to the learned AGP, through its affidavit, in spite of it the University had not complied with the

¶71

Belkhede, PS

¶72

This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

¶73

11 wp3816.2024. speak.docx

¶74

Government Resolution dated 16.4.2024. It was then finally submitted that in the year 1984, the post was sanctioned for one year only and thereafter, no post was sanctioned.

¶75

So far as stand taken by respondent No.5 through her counsel is concerned, suffice it to produce the following pleadings in affidavit in reply filed by it dated 27.3.2025:

¶76

“24. The impugned communication and GR at Annexure A and Annexure B to the petition, do not consider the necessity of the respondent University for continuation of these posts and the same have been issued without considering the adverse effects and financial implications of not sanctioning the post with retrospective effect. The same are also contrary to their own communication and order dated 2.11.1989 and thus suffer from arbitrariness and without any reasonable excuse. The decision under the impugned GRs is not at all in the interest of the students and the longstanding need of the University. Thus, the impugned action of the State Government under the impugned GR and the subsequent denial to grant retrospective sanction is unsustainable in law and needs reconsideration.”

¶77

Rival contentions fall for consideration. Since, the principle

¶78

argument is regarding applicability of legitimate expectation, the following principles will have to be kept in mind. The said principles

¶79

Belkhede, PS

¶80

This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

¶81

12 wp3816.2024. speak.docx

¶82

are explained in case of Monnet Espat and Energy Ltd Vs. Union of India [(2012)11 SCC 1] which are reproduced as under:

¶83

“183 - As there are parallels between the doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation because both these doctrines are founded on the concept of fairness and arise out of natural justice, it is appropriate that the principles of legitimate expectation are also noticed here only to appreciate the case of appellants founded on the basis of doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation.

¶84

It is not necessary to multiply the decisions of this court. Suffice it to observe that the following principles in relation to the doctrine of legitimate expectation are now well established:

¶85

188.1. The doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked as a substantive and enforceable right.

¶86

188.2. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is founded on the principle of reasonableness and fairness. The doctrine arises out of principle of natural justice and there are parallels between the doctrine of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel.

¶87

188.3. Where the decision of an authority is founded in public interest as per executive policy or law, the court would be reluctant to interfere with such decision by invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The legitimate expectation doctrine cannot be invoked to fetter changes in administrative policy if it is in the public interest to do so.

¶88

188.4. The legitimate expectation is different from anticipation and an anticipation cannot amount to an hasertable expectation. Such expectation should be

¶89

Belkhede, PS

¶90

This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

¶91

13 wp3816.2024. speak.docx

¶92

justifiable, legitimate and proctatable.

¶93

The protection of legitimate expectation does not require the fulfillment of expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words, personal benefit must give way to public interest and doctrine of legitimate expectation would not be invoked which could block public interest for private benefit”.

¶94

In the aforesaid background, when we deal with the case in

¶95

hand, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was duly qualified to occupy the post of DOSPE. The post was duly sanctioned and advertisement was published. In pursuance with advertisement, the petitioner applied and was appointed by duly constituted committee. The petitioner has also received salary and the increments for rendering his services. The petitioner has been working on the said post since his initial appointment i.e. 2.1.2001. The fact cannot be ignored that Mr. V.M. Sharma was appointed on the post of DOSE on 17.9.1983 and retired

¶96

Corrected as per Court’s order dated 2.2.2026 in CAW 232 of 2026.

¶97

on 31.07.1997, who is receiving regular monthly pension.

¶98

While disposing of Writ Petition 2157/2021, on 26.6.2023,

¶99

this Court had directed reconsideration of the proposal which was submitted by the University seeking permission and approval to have

¶100

Belkhede, PS

¶101

This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

¶102

14 wp3816.2024. speak.docx

¶103

the post of DOSPE by granting opportunity to the petitioner as well as university to place before the said authority all the relevant documents

¶104

in that regard. The petitioner in his petition, more particularly, at page

¶105

16 has mentioned that in the said proposal certain aspects which are

¶106

highlighted by the University were reproduced:

¶107

“A) The duties and functions of Director of Sports and Physical Education :-

¶108

i) Calling applications for each sport fromf 400 Affiliated Colleges,

¶109

ii) Preparing sport wise list for every competition,

¶110

iii) Preparing yearly calender for all the sport competition as well as even for the university and affiliated colleges,

¶111

iv) Preparatoin of list of sports man representing eahc college by duly collecting information in the relevant college,

¶112

v) Selection of candidates for each sport for different competitions to be held at state as well as national level by duly constituting the selection committee.

¶113

vi) The responsibilit to conduct the inter university sports competation as per the sports calender published by NIL, New Delhi

¶114

vii) Organizing inter university sports competition for 10 days which includes 59 different teams of different categoy of sports.

¶115

Viii) Maintaining record of entry, expense and winners for allotment of color coat, track suit, for each cateogory of sport.

¶116

ix) Selection of candidates for Maharashtra State Inter University Sports Competition and their preparation.

¶117

x) Preparation and organization of training cmaps for national level sports event like “Khelo India”

¶118

xi) Establishement of Sports and Physical Education Board as per Section 57 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016.

¶119

Belkhede, PS

¶120

This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

¶121

15 wp3816.2024. speak.docx

¶122

xii) To act as member secretary of Board of Sports and Physicla Education as per Section 57(2)(j) of the act of 2016. xiii) To comply and assist the board constituted u/s 57 to perofrm its duties laid down in Section 58(a) to (h) of the Act of 2016.

¶123

B) Increase in the number of sports events and affiliated colleges:

¶124

I) That at the time of appointment of Shri V.M. Sharma total number of affiliated colleges were 77.

¶125

ii) That at the time of retirement of Shri V.M. Sharma in th eyear 1996, the total numbe rof affiliated colleges were 176. iiiv) That at th etime of appointment of the petitoiner in the year 2000 thetotal numbe of affiliated colleges were 238. iv) That as on today the total numbe rof affiliated collges are 412.

¶126

v) That as such from 1983 to 2023 over all the numbe rof 335 affiliated colleges has increased.

¶127

vi) That in the year 1996 only 19 men and women were required to be selected so as to represent the university. Vii) That however now 30 men and women are required to be selected to represent the unversity at different national as well as international level”.

¶128

If the impugned Government Resolution is perused, it is

¶129

crystal clear that none of the aspects and what was expected in an order passed by this Court on 26.6.2023 were met with. Though, by said Government Resolution dated 16.4.2024, decision has been taken to sanction the post of DOSPE, same was directed to be filled in by recruitment process and the post was sanctioned from 16.4.2024. Admittedly, in a proposal forwarded, details of which are mentioned supra, various aspects were highlighted including the fact that when the

¶130

Belkhede, PS

¶131

This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

¶132

16 wp3816.2024. speak.docx

¶133

petitioner was appointed in the year 2000, the total number of affiliated colleges were 238 whereas, in the year 1996 when Mr. V.M. Sharma retired, total number of affiliated colleges were 176. The length of service which is rendered by the petitioner on the aforesaid post i.e. since the year 2000 till 2024, definitely gives legitimate expectation to the person to be continued on the said post with entitlement to all service benefits.

¶134

The petitioner’s legitimate expectation can be said to be genuine since when interview for the post of DOSPE were held on 288-2000, near about 21 candidates had appeared and after due competition, he was found to be meritorious. The recommendation for appointment was made by the committee which was duly constituted under provisions of Maharashtra Universities Act. One Dr. T.D. Mudliyar was also present during the course of recruitment as Joint Director of Higher Education, who had in fact duly represented respondent No.1. Further, the recommendation made by Selection Committee was duly signed by Mr. T.D. Mudliyar and the Vice Chancellor of Amravati University.

¶135

Belkhede, PS

¶136

This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

¶137

17 wp3816.2024. speak.docx

¶138

Even in appointment order, it was mentioned that

¶139

expenditure on account of salary and allowances of the services rendered by the petitioner shall be held admissible from the State Government grants. Copy of the appointment order was forwarded to Universities Grants Commission so also respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner had received regular salary and yearly increment which are available to the post since last more than 16 years. Thus, aforesaid fact clearly show that the petitioner was legitimately expecting that the post of DOSPE was permanent sanction post. Since the Joint Director was member of the committee, he could have very well objected to the appointment of the petitioner had there been some illegality committed during appointment. It is further pertinent to note that in a proposal forwarded it was mentioned that post of DOSPE was included in total number of sanction posts as per Government Resolution dated 25.9.1991. However, same were not included in GR dated 22.2.2007. The reason advanced for not incorporating the post was that as per communication dated 21.7.1984, the post was sanctioned for the period

¶140

of one year only. However, the Government itself by

¶141

Belkhede, PS

¶142

This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

¶143

18 wp3816.2024. speak.docx

¶144

communication dated 2.11.1989 had clarified that while granting sanction to the teaching or non teaching post, no specific period is mentioned and as such, there is no necessity of securing any permanent sanction to these posts.

¶145

The aforesaid fact clearly points out that the petitioner was right that he was under legitimate expectation to claim and continue on the post.

¶146

Looking the issue from another angle, we can say that if the post is not sanctioned with retrospective effect i.e. from the date on which the petitioner was appointed, same would result into adopting hire and fire policy. On the one hand, the service jurisprudence in recent years leans in favour of permannancy and regularization and on the other hand, by allowing the respondent authorities to fill the post of DOSPE by way of fresh recruitment, ignoring long standing service of the petitioner would not be in the interest of justice. Considering the fact that doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked as a substantive and enforceable right and since said principle is founded on

¶147

Belkhede, PS

¶148

This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //

¶149

19 wp3816.2024. speak.docx

¶150

the principles of reasonableness and the fairness, we deem it appropriate to allow the petition. Accordingly, petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (ii). Needless to mention that petitioner will consequently be entitled for all service benefits accordingly. Petition is disposed of.

¶151

Sd/- Sd/(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) Corrected as per Court’s order dated 02.02.2026 in CAW No. 232 of 2026.

¶152

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶153

Belkhede, PS

Dr. Avinash Mukund Asnare v. State of Maha., Thr. Secretary for Higher and Technical Education Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Avinash Mukund Asnare v. State of Maha., Thr. Secretary for Higher and Technical Education Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Avinash Mukund Asnare vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary for Higher and Technical Education Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Aryavarta Mining, Kolkata, Thr. Constituted Attorney, Debashis Sinha and Ors. vs Western Coalfields Limited, Coal Estate, Nagpur, Thr. Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.

Aryavarta Mining, Kolkata, Thr. Constituted Attorney, Debashis Sinha and Ors. vs Western Coalfields Limited, Coal Estate, Nagpur, Thr. Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.

Dr. Avinash Mukund Asnare vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary for Higher and Technical Education Dept., Mumbai and Ors.