‘Exploitation Shocks Our Conscience’: Bombay HC Orders Confirmation for Teacher Kept on Probation for 7 Years

Court Summary

In a case described as "open and shut," the Bombay High Court, led by a division bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe , has ruled that an assistant professor kept on probation for nearly seven years is entitled to be treated as a confirmed employee. The court issued a writ of mandamus directing Mumbadevi Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalay to issue a confirmation order to Dr. Reshu Singh , effective from the date her initial probation period ended in 2020, and to grant her all consequential benefits.

---

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Dr. Reshu Singh , was appointed as an Assistant Professor at Mumbadevi Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalay on April 18, 2018, for a probation period of two years. She joined on June 20, 2018, and her probation was set to conclude on June 20, 2020.

Despite completing her probation, the college management never issued a confirmation order. Dr. Singh sent multiple emails and a formal letter between April 2021 and July 2023 seeking confirmation, but her employment status remained in limbo. By the time her case was heard, she had been working as a probationer for almost seven years, prompting her to file a writ petition in the High Court.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Submissions

Senior Advocate Mr. J.P. Cama , representing Dr. Singh , argued that her continued employment as a probationer was illegal. He highlighted two key points:

1. UGC Regulations : The 2018 UGC Regulations mandate a probation period of one year, extendable by a maximum of one more year. They also obligate the institution to issue a confirmation order within 45 days of the probation period's completion.

2. No Extension Provision : The petitioner's appointment letter did not contain any clause for extending the two-year probation period. Furthermore, the management never communicated any issues regarding her performance.

Mr. Cama asserted that keeping an employee on probation for nearly seven years amounted to exploitation and was contrary to established legal principles.

Respondents' Stance

The counsel for the college management, Mr. Vivek Khemka , was unable to provide a satisfactory reason for the delay. He initially claimed that the confirmation letter was not issued because approval from the Central Sanskrit University (CSU) had not been received.

However, the court noted that this submission was directly contradicted by a 2021 email from the college's own Managing Committee Chairman, which confirmed that a high-level committee report had been studied and the CSU had already granted its approval to issue the confirmation letter.

Court's Analysis and Legal Precedents

The High Court expressed its dismay at the management's conduct, stating that the situation "shocks our judicial conscience." The bench remarked, "A teacher cannot be treated in this way. The manner in which the Petitioner has been treated amounts to exploitation, to say the least."

The court relied on the landmark five-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Dharam Singh (1968) . In that case, the Supreme Court established the principle of "deemed confirmation," holding that where service rules forbid the extension of probation beyond a maximum period, an employee who continues to work after that period without an express confirmation order is considered confirmed by implication.

Applying this principle, the bench reasoned:

"Where, as in the present case, the service rules fix a certain period of time beyond which the probationary period cannot be extended, and an employee... is allowed to continue in that post after completion of the maximum period of probation without an express order of confirmation, he cannot be deemed to continue in that post as a probationer by implication."

The court noted that under the UGC regulations, the maximum probation period is two years. As Dr. Singh was allowed to continue working well beyond this, she was deemed to have been confirmed.

The judges found the management's contradictory submission "astonishing" and refused to countenance it.

Final Verdict and Implications

The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and issued a clear directive to the respondents:

1. Issue Confirmation Order : The college must issue a confirmation order to Dr. Reshu Singh with retrospective effect from June 20, 2020 .

2. Grant Consequential Benefits : The petitioner is to be provided with all consequential benefits, including promotions, non-compoundable advance increments (as she held a Ph.D. at the time of joining), and other associated benefits.

This judgment reinforces the legal protection afforded to employees against indefinite probation and serves as a strong reminder to employers that they cannot exploit workers by arbitrarily withholding confirmation.