JUDGMENT : A JIT B. K ADETHANKAR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Kiran Bapat, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, Mrs. S.N. Deshmukh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State, Mr. Vikram Walawalkar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3-University and Mr. Narendra Bandiwadekar, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent No.4. Perused entire record. 2. Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. Considering the subject matter of the Petition, we heard the respective parties for final disposal of the Writ Petition with their consent. 2.1 Issue for consideration : After having been participated the Selection Procedure, having signed the Selection result in 2001 and having approved selection for appointment in 2002, whether the Joint Director of Education is justified in terming the appointment as faulty? (i) Management sought permission to ill up 2 Full Time and 1 Part time post of Assistant Professors. (ii) Permission was received to ill in 2 Full time posts. (iii) Due to reduction in workload, selection procedure could be conducted only to ill up 1 Full time and 1 Part time post. Advertisement was accordingly published. (iv) Selection procedure was conducted under the supervision and control of the Joint Director of Education. The Authority participated the Selection Procedure, signed the appointment result, and also granted approval to the appointments in 2001. (v) Whether now the Authority is justified in holding the appointment on Part Time post faulty, for the reason that permission was for 2 Full time Posts but appointment were made on 1 full time and 1 part time post? 3. Facts in brief:- 3.1 The Principal of Wellingdon College, Sangli addressed a communication to the Joint Director of Education (Higher Education), Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur on 18-07-2000. This was the covering letter of a proposal seeking permission to ill up certain posts of Professors in the subjects of Hindi, English, Director of Physical Education, Mathematics and Electronics. It is pertinent to note that two full time and one part time posts in the subject of Hindi were also included in the list of the posts for which permission was sought by the college. 3.2 Vide response dated 14-08-2000, the Joint Director issued ‘no objection certificate’ / permission. This ‘no objection’ included the two full time posts in Hindi and one full time post in Mathematics. 3.2 Vide response dated 14-08-2000, the Joint Director issued ‘no objection certificate’ / permission. This ‘no objection’ included the two full time posts in Hindi and one full time post in Mathematics. 3.3 Pursuant to the permission received from the competent authority, the Petitioners-college issued an advertisement on 25-09-2000 in the daily newspaper i.e. Daily Sakal, Kolhapur addition (page 72 to Petition). 3.4 Pursuant to the advertisement, as many as 43 candidates applied for appointment. Total 11 candidates were sorted out of the total number of candidates, corresponding to their qualification and experience. 3.5 On 06-01-2001, the selection committee conducted its meeting and discussed on the merits of the candidates, who were called in for interview process. 3.6 The Selection Committee consisted of eight members. A representative of the Jt. Director of Education, namely Professor P.A. Latkar, was a member of the Committee, and participated in the selection process. 3.7 In the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 06.01.2001, it was unequivocally resolved to appoint Mr. Balwant V. Jeurkar to the full- time post under the General category, and Smt. Asha Ingawale (Respondent No. 4 herein) to the part-time post under the General category. The entire record of the selection process has been placed before this Hon’ble Court and forms part of the Writ Petition at page Nos. 72 to 82. 3.8 Pursuant to the decision of selection committee, the Petitioner No.1-society, however didn’t appoint the Respondent No.4 on the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi (part time) on account of non availability of work load. Instead, the Respondent No. 4 was appointed initially on clock hour basis and later on contract basis. 3.9 It appears that the Petitioners applied to the Respondent- University seeking approval to the appointment of Respondent No.4. The Respondent-University accorded approval to the appointment of Respondent No.4. Consequently, vide order dated 30-01-2002, the Joint Director of Higher Education, Kolhapur also granted approval to the appointments of the candidates appointed in the subject of Hindi and Mathematics, including the appointment of the Petitioner. However, as stated supra the Respondent No.4 was not appointed on the Part time post. 3.10 The record shows that the Respondent No.4 raised a dispute that the Petitioner No.2 appointed her in 2001 on clock hour basis and in 2003 appointed full time on contract basis. 3.11 Respondent No.4 then approached the Grievance Redressal Committee of the Respondent-University in 2005. 3.10 The record shows that the Respondent No.4 raised a dispute that the Petitioner No.2 appointed her in 2001 on clock hour basis and in 2003 appointed full time on contract basis. 3.11 Respondent No.4 then approached the Grievance Redressal Committee of the Respondent-University in 2005. An exhaustive hearing was conducted by the Committee. The Committee concluded hearing, wherein the committee vide its order dated 27-03-2008 directed the Petitioners to appoint the Respondent No.4 in terms of her appointment of 2001. 3.12 The Petitioners challenged the order passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee before Civil Court vide a Civil Suit. The Civil Suit failed. An appeal lodged against the dismissal of suit also could not succeed. 3.13 Despite the directions given by the grievance redressal committee, the petitioners didn’t appoint the Respondent No.4 on the Part time post. Hence she filed Writ Petition no. 2199 of 2009 in this Court. During the hearing, the Petitioners made a statement that they had challenged Committee’s order vide a Civil Suit, and that if the suit fails the Petitioners shall pay the Respondent No.4 regularly. Taking such statement on record, the Writ Petition no. 2199 of 2009 was disposed. As stated above, the Petitioners could not get any fruitful result out of the civil suit. 3.14 The Respondent No.4 was running from pillar to pole despite she having all the orders in her favor. She made various representations to the University and the Petitioners. The University also time and again reminded the Petitioners to abide by the order passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee. At last, the Respondent No.4 was appointed by the Petitioners-Management on part time post vide appointment order dated 04-07-2012. 3.15 Despite having appointed on subject-matter Part time post of Assistant Professor, the Respondent No.4 was not paid any salary. The record annexed to the Writ Petition particularly letter dated 09-07-2013 written by the Respondent No.4 to the Director, BCUD, Shivaji University, Kolhapur, shows that she was not being paid any salary despite having been appointed by due process. 3.15 Despite having appointed on subject-matter Part time post of Assistant Professor, the Respondent No.4 was not paid any salary. The record annexed to the Writ Petition particularly letter dated 09-07-2013 written by the Respondent No.4 to the Director, BCUD, Shivaji University, Kolhapur, shows that she was not being paid any salary despite having been appointed by due process. 3.16 The Respondent No.4 was constrained to file Writ Petition No. 181 of 2018 seeking directions to the Respondents including the present Petitioners and the University authority to implement the order dated 27-03- 2008 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee and thereby seeking directions to release all the monetary benefits with effect from the date of her selection in the year 2001. 3.17 During the hearing of Writ Petition No. 181 of 2018, the college and the Management made a statement undertaking to send a proposal for approval to the appointment of Respondent No.4 in the light of the decision rendered by the Grievance Redressal Committee on 27-03-2008. 3.18 As such by taking the undertaking on record, the Writ Petition came to be disposed of with directions to the College and the Management to submit a proposal seeking approval to Respondent No.4’s appointment. 3.19 The Respondent No.4 therein was directed to pass appropriate order within a time frame. The Writ Petition No. 181 of 2018 was disposed of vide order dated 12-07-2021. 3.20 Accordingly, on 06-08-2021 the Petitioner No.2 submitted a proposal to the Divisional Joint Director (Higher Education), Kolhapur seeking approval for salary grants to the Respondent No.4’s appointment on part time post and for appropriate decision to see whether the Respondent No.4 could be accommodated on full time post in the light of the available workload. 3.21 The proposal was exhaustive one and was accompanied with all the necessary documents. 3.22 It appears that the Divisional Joint Director conducted a hearing wherein an opportunity was given to the Petitioners and Respondent No.4 to put forth their representations. The hearing was conducted on 09-08-2021. 3.23 The Minutes of the meeting would reveal that permission was granted to the Petitioners to ill up two full time posts in the subject of Hindi, however the Petitioners appointed the Respondent No.4 on part time basis. Its an admitted position that another full time post was also filled in. The hearing was conducted on 09-08-2021. 3.23 The Minutes of the meeting would reveal that permission was granted to the Petitioners to ill up two full time posts in the subject of Hindi, however the Petitioners appointed the Respondent No.4 on part time basis. Its an admitted position that another full time post was also filled in. 3.24 It further reveals that the authority i.e. Divisional Joint Director raised objection that the Petitioners never sought instructions as to whether full time / part time posts should be filled in, if the work load was reduced. 3.25 In nutshell, while the permission was granted to ill up Two full time posts, the Petitioners filled in One Full Time and One Part Time post. And hence the appointment itself was questioned and accordingly salary grants were denied. 3.26 As such, vide order dated 08-10-2021, the Joint Director of Education rejected the proposal filed by the Petitioners for release of salary grants to the Respondent No.4 and also refusal for accommodating the Respondent No.4 on the full time post. Hence, the Petitioners are before this Court challenging the order dated 08-10-2021, particularly challenging the refusal of salary grants to the Respondent No.4. 3.27 The record of present Writ Petition would submit that this Court vide order dated 16-09-2022 directed the Petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- which were part of the arrears of the remuneration payable to the Respondent No.4. 3.28 The parties do not dispute that the Petitioners deposited the said amount and the Respondent No.4 has withdrawn the same under the orders of this Court dated 15-03-2024. 3.29 The order dated 02-05-2024 passed by this Court would show that the Petitioners-Management is directed to continue paying salary to the Respondent No.4 until further orders to be passed by this Court. 3.30 Further record speaks that sometimes the Petitioners defaulted in paying the salary and that this Court has recorded such default observing that the Petitioners must pay the salary to the Respondent No.4 or to face contempt proceedings. 3.31 Today, Mr. Bapat, learned senior counsel makes a statement that the Respondent No.4 is regularly being paid the salary in terms of the orders passed by this Court. 4 . Petitioner’s arguments : 4.1 Mr. 3.31 Today, Mr. Bapat, learned senior counsel makes a statement that the Respondent No.4 is regularly being paid the salary in terms of the orders passed by this Court. 4 . Petitioner’s arguments : 4.1 Mr. Bapat, learned senior counsel for Petitioners would submit that at the relevant time in the year 1999-2000, the Petitioners-Management had sought permission to ill up a number of posts including two full time and one part time post in the subject of Hindi. He would submit that proposal was indeed granted to ill up two full time posts in Hindi, however the Respondent No.4 was accommodated as a part time Associate Professor or Assistant Professor considering the reduced work load. 4.2 He would further submit that the entire selection procedure would demonstrate that the selection procedure was conducted for one full time and another one part time post in Hindi. That, the selection process consisted the representative from the Divisional Joint Director of Higher Education, Kolhapur. 4.3 The said selection committee appointed the Respondent No.4 on part time post in Hindi. That, the approval also granted by the University as also from the office of the Divisional Joint Director to the appointment of the Respondent No.4 as part time Associate Professor. 4.4 Mr. Bapat, learned senior counsel was at pains to submit that under the peculiar circumstances of these facts wherein the Joint Director of Education was party to the selection procedure and has even granted approval to the subject matter part time appointment, now the said authority i.e. Jt. Director of Education is estopped from saying that the salary grant shall not be payable to the Respondent No.4 on the part time post. 4.5 Mr. Bapat, learned senior counsel would conclude that the impugned order be set-aside and the Divisional Joint Director be directed to release salary grant to the Respondent No.4 from 2001 etc. 5 . Respondents Arguments : 5.1 The Respondent No.4 represented by Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned senior counsel would submit that the Respondent No.4 was deprived of her legitimate right to work, as part time Assistant Professor (Hindi), by the Petitioners, whereby she was appointed on clock hour basis. He would further submit that injustice on her continued whereby she was later appointed on contract basis. 5.2 Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned senior counsel would submit that the Respondent No.4 was constrained to approach the Grievance Redressal Committee of the University. He would further submit that injustice on her continued whereby she was later appointed on contract basis. 5.2 Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned senior counsel would submit that the Respondent No.4 was constrained to approach the Grievance Redressal Committee of the University. On 27-03-2008, the Committee directed the Petitioners to appoint the Respondent No.4 on the part time post in terms of the original appointment order of 2001. He would submit that the utter disregard of the Petitioners to the directions of the Grievance Redressal Committee’s decision constrained her to file the Writ Petition No. 2199 of 2009 and Writ Petition no. 181 of 2018. He further submit that even the Divisional Joint Director has not considered all the aspects of the matter and has refused for salary grants to her. 5.3 Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned senior counsel would fairly submit that the Respondent No.4 has not filed any proceedings thereby seeking her accommodation on full time post in Hindi. 5.4 As such, the Respondent No.4 would pray to pass appropriate orders, by protecting the interest of the Respondent No.4. 6. Mrs. Deshmukh, learned A.G.P. opposes the Writ Petition with vehement arguments. The predominant objection of Mrs. Deshmukh is that no permission was granted to ill up a part time post in Hindi. That permission was granted for two full time posts, but the Respondent No.4’s appointment was made on part time post. 6.1 Mrs. Deshmukh, learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the controversy goes to the root of the matter, if the Petitioners-Management has made the subject matter appointment in violation of the no objection certificate / permission granted by the competent authority. 6.2 Mrs. Deshmukh, learned Assistant Government Pleader however on being confronted to the documents attached to the Writ Petition, would fairly agree that the selection procedure was conducted wherein the representative of the Joint Director of Education was party. He would agree that the appointment of the Respondent No.4 on part time post was made pursuant to the recommendation of the selection committee and approval was also subsequently granted from the office of the Divisional Joint Director to the Respondent No.4’s appointment on part time post. 6.3 In view of this Mrs. Deshmukh, learned Assistant Government Pleader would pray to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. Mr. Walawalkar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3–University, condemns the approach of the Petitioners. 6.3 In view of this Mrs. Deshmukh, learned Assistant Government Pleader would pray to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. Mr. Walawalkar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3–University, condemns the approach of the Petitioners. He submit that the University shall not advocate the actions of the Petitioners. He would submit that the Petitioners rather paid no heed to the order passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee. That the Petitioners even didn’t obey the directions issued by the University to appoint the Respondent No.4 pursuant to her selection on subject-matter part time post. Mr. Walawalkar, learned counsel thus prays to pass appropriate orders. 8 . Discussion and consideration : 8.1 It is not in dispute that the Management can ill up only such posts which are sanctioned by the competent authorities. A vacancy of a teaching post is always subject to availability of the work load. Salary grants to the part time post and full time posts are also different. 8.2 In the case is hand, it is not disputed that the subject matter post deserves salary grants. The submission of Mr. Bapat, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners needs to be taken into consideration that permission to ill up two full time posts and one part time post in Hindi was sought by the Petitioner-Management. This requirement was corresponding to the then work load. Although permission was granted to ill in two full time posts in Hindi, selection procedure was however conducted for one full and one part time posts in Hindi. It is not the case that the appointment was made to a full time post against the permission to ill up a part time post. 8.3 Mr. Bapat, learned senior counsel has submitted that the appointment on part time post was consequent to the reduced work load. 8.4 We cannot overlook the fact that the selection procedure was conducted taking into conifidence the competent authority i.e. the Divisional Joint Director of Kolhapur Division. An advertisement indicating clearly the number and nature of the posts to be filled in was published in Daily Sakal. The representative of the said authority was a member of the selection committee and also participated the selection procedure that included scrutiny and verification of the documents including the permission, the advertisement, the candidature, documents and the interviews of the participants. The representative of the said authority was a member of the selection committee and also participated the selection procedure that included scrutiny and verification of the documents including the permission, the advertisement, the candidature, documents and the interviews of the participants. 8.5 The appointment of one full time post in Hindi and part time post in Hindi were made by the said selection committee of which the representatives of the Joint Director of Education has put his signature. 8.6 Even the subsequent correspondence from the office of the Joint Director of Education dated 30-01-2002 granting approval to the appointments would show that the said authority was well aware as to why and how the appointment of the Respondent No.4 was made on part time post in Hindi. 8.7 At no point of time during this entire process the Divisional Joint Director has raised any objection to the appointment of the Respondent No.4 on subject matter part time post (Hindi). The said authority was also party Respondent in Writ Petition No. 181 of 2018. 8.8 It is pertinent to note that the office of the Joint Director of Education was also made aware of the order passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee in its meeting dated 06-02-2008 that the Respondent No.4 was directed to be appointed as part time Associate Professor (Hindi) in view of the approval order dated 30-10-2001. 8.9 It is not the case put up by the Joint Director of Education that the post is not sanctioned one. It is also not a case that the Petitioners exceeded in making appointments than the permission granted for. What has happened is that the permission was granted for two full time posts, but the selection process was conducted for one full and one part time posts. 8.10 We again refer to the communication dated 08-11-2001 made by the Petitioner No. 2-college to the Divisional Joint Director of Education, whereby clearly it was mentioned that the Petitioner was appointed on one part time post (General category Hindi) was made together with one appointment on full time post (General category Hindi). The said communication gives reference to the entire selection procedure. The Divisional Joint Director has expressly and in unequivocal terms approved the said appointments. The said communication gives reference to the entire selection procedure. The Divisional Joint Director has expressly and in unequivocal terms approved the said appointments. 8.11 The replies and the rejoinders in the Writ Petition would clearly reveal that the objection from the Joint Director of Education is regarding the sanction granted for two full time posts and the appointment i.e. made on one full time and one part time post. The response of the Management refers to the subsequent reduction in work load constraining the Management to ill in first full time post and second part time post instead of full time post. 8.12 In view of this, we do not fathom the logic and reasoning applied by the Divisional Joint Director of Education that salary grants could not be paid to the Respondent No.4’s appointment as part time Assistant Professor (Hindi). The authority is estopped now from contending that the Respondent No.4’s appointment on part time post was faulty. 8.13 Hence, we are of the considered view that the authority needs to be directed to pay the salary grants payable to the Respondent No.4 as part time Assistant Professor (General category Hindi). 8.14 Mr. Bapat, learned senior counsel has argued before us that the salary grants has to be paid by the authority since from 2001 i.e. 30-10-2001. He would submit that in terms of the orders passed by this Court on earlier occasion and also a statement made by the Petitioners in another Writ Petition No. 2199 of 2009, as observed in order dated 06-09-2010 the Petitioners are under obligation to pay regular salary to the Respondent No.4. 8.15 Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned senior counsel for the Respondent No.4 did not dispute that the Petitioners are regularly paying the salary to the Respondent No.4. 8.16 The record reveals that the Petitioners did not accommodate the Respondent No.4 initially even on the part time post, despite she having been appointed by due process. 8.17 The Respondent No.4 was initially appointed on clock hour basis and then on contract basis. The Petitioners had to rush to the Grievance Redressal Committee of the University seeking appropriate directions in 2005. In the year 2008, the Grievance Redressal Committee directed the Petitioners to appoint the Respondent No.4 in terms of the appointment order of 2001, then only the Respondent No.4 was appointed by the Petitioners on the subject matter post in the year 2012. In the year 2008, the Grievance Redressal Committee directed the Petitioners to appoint the Respondent No.4 in terms of the appointment order of 2001, then only the Respondent No.4 was appointed by the Petitioners on the subject matter post in the year 2012. It is only after the orders passed by this Court in this Writ Petition, the Petitioners- Management deposited an amount of Rs.20 Lakh in this Court on 04-10-2022. 8.18 This was too at the instance of the grievance raised by the Respondent No.4, but not out of any bonafide shown by the Petitioners. Despite having been selected in 2001 on the subject-matter Part Time post of Assistant Professor, the Petitioners actually placed the Respondent No.4 on the post in 2012. We absolute discard Petitioners’ prayer for directions to release salary grants from 2001. 8.19 It is a matter of fact that since from the date of appointment of the Respondent No.4 on the subject matter post or her placement on the subject matter post, pursuant to the orders passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee, the Petitioners never demanded for the salary grants payable to the Respondent No.4. 8.20 Hence, the arrears of the salary grant payable to the Respondent No.4 can be permissible only for last 36 months i.e. three years, as per the settled law in this field. The Petitioners cannot maintain claim for payment of arrears for more than last three years. 9. For the reasons recorded above, we pass the following Order : ORDER: A) The Writ Petition stands partly allowed. B) The Respondent No.2-Divisional Joint Director, Higher Education, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur shall release arrears of salary grants payable to the Respondent No.4’s appointment on the post of part time post of Assistant Professor for three years upto February 2026 and shall release further salary grants regularly. C) Rule made absolute in above terms.