12.WP.2343.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2343 OF 2009 Dr.Keshav Raghunath Shimpi. ..Petitioner. Versus The Registrar, University of Pune and 5 others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Sagar Kasar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vishwanath S. Talkute, Advocate for respondent No.5. Mr.V.S. Gokhale, A.G.P., for respondent Nos.4 & 6. .... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH, AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED : 9TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.:­ 1. The petitioner by this Petition seeks direction to the respondent University to grant approval to the proposal submitted by the Management for grant of approval to his appointment as Principal of respondent No.5 College. According to the petitioner, he was selected for the post of Principal of a college which is affiliated to respondent No.1 University. Proposal was submitted by the College to the 12.WP.2343.09 2 University for approval. That proposal was however returned on the ground that no creamy layer certificate has been submitted. It appears that the petitioner was selected against the post reserved for Other Backward Classes. The petitioner, therefore, challenged that communication before this Court by filing Writ Petition. That Writ Petition was withdrawn by the petitioner by order dated 29.11.2007 in view of letter dated 21.7.2007. The letter was written by the State Government to the Registrars of the Universities pointing out that as per the letter of the Central Government dated 14.10.2004 when a candidate is to be appointed against a post reserved for O.B.C. his non­ creamy layer certificate is not to be produced but non­ creamy layer certificate of his parents is to be produced. Pursuant to that letter, it appears that the petitioner submitted an affidavit about income of his parents who it appears were no more by that time. The petitioner also submitted the papers to the Joint Director of Education. The Joint Director of Education addressed a letter dated 15.4.2008 to the Registrar of the Pune University noting all 12.WP.2343.09 3 the facts and recommendations granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Principal. 2. It appears that thereafter by communication dated 17.6.2008, the University declined to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the College for the same reason, viz., non­submission of non­creamy layer certificate. 3. This Court by an order dated 8.4.2009 issued notice to the respondents. The University has been served with the notice. None appears for the respondents. Nobody has filed any reply. The State Government and other respondents filed their reply and they have supported the stand of the petitioner which was also supported by the Joint Director of Education by his letter dated 15.4.2008 that the University cannot insist in view of the letter issued by the Central Government on submission of non­creamy layer certificate by the petitioner. It appears that the University has declined to approve the appointment of the petitioner by communication dated 17.6.2008 without applying its mind to the material produced before it. It is clear from the letter 12.WP.2343.09 4 of the State Government which is based on the letter of the Central Government that non­creamy layer certificate of the candidate or his wife is not to be insisted upon. In our opinion, refusal to grant approval by the University is clearly contrary to the instructions issued by the State Government to the University. In such circumstances, therefore, in our opinion the Petition will have to be allowed. Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule in the Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (K.K. TATED,J)