HC disposes petition on 5 K college teaching posts after key GR cited

Lokmat News Network

Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Ajit B Kadethankаr, disposed of a petition after taking note of the Government Resolution (GR) dated 11 February 2026, clarifying that since the government itself has made UGC norms mandatory, compliance is expected in all future recruitments.

According to details, the petition was filed by a retired principal, Lalchand Avchit Patil, demanding that merit, transparency, and uniform criteria be followed in the recruitment process for 5,012 vacant teaching posts in private aided senior colleges across the state.

Box

What Was the Petitioner's Stand?

The petitioner argued that just as a transparent system like 'Shalarth' exists in the school education sector, a similarly centralised and rule-based system is necessary for recruitment in private aided colleges. The petition contended that UGC guidelines often remain only on paper during actual recruitment, and that institutional management tends to influence the selection process.

box

GR Proved Decisive

During the hearing, the court took note of the resolution issued by the Higher and Technical Education Department on 11 February 2026, which granted approval to fill 5,012 vacant posts in private aided colleges across the State.

In particular, the court recorded that Clause 2.4 of the GR states: "The recruitment process will be conducted transparently from among eligible candidates, strictly adhering to the UGC guidelines issued from time to time and the prescribed criteria for teaching positions."

Box

'No Cause for Grievance Remains'

The bench observed that the petitioner's primary concern was that the recruitment process should follow UGC norms, and since this has now been incorporated into the GR, the grievance stands addressed.

The court also noted that the petitioner could not cite a single instance of a recruitment being carried out in violation of the rules after the GR was issued. The court further clarified that a mere apprehension or possibility that the GR may not be followed in the future does not warrant additional constitutional intervention.