1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4451/2010 People's Welfare Society through its President vs. Rashtra Sant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur and another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. R.S.Parsodkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. B.G.Kulkarni, Advocate for R-1. Mr. I.J.Damle, Advocate for R-2 CORAM : V.C.DAGA & A.B.CHAUDHARI,JJ DATE : 29.11.2010 Heard. 2. Perused petition. 3. The petitioner a Society and Trust is managing and running P.W.S. Arts and Commerce College, at Kamptee Road, Nagpur. 4. The respondent no.2 was working as Principal of P.W.S. Arts and Commerce College, Nagpur. The Management appears to have noticed certain misconducts committed by the respondent no.2 leading to misappropriation of funds and financial irregularities which resulted in issuance of charge sheet followed by departmental enquiry followed by decision to terminate the services of the respondent no.2 which requires prior approval of the Executive Council of the Nagpur 2` University under Clause 5 of the Statute 53 the statute provided for confirmation of the teachers in affiliated colleges. Accordingly, the petitioner society has sent proposal to the respondent no.1 University on 28.4.2010 for grant of permission to terminate the services of the respondent no.2. It appears that despite of lapse of 4 ½ months no decision was taken on the proposal submitted by the petitioner society. Consequently, the petitioner society has invoked writ jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer directing the respondent no.1 University to decide the proposal submitted by the petitioner dated 28.4.2010 within the period of one month. In addition to this a declaration is sought that no prior permission from the respondent no.1 University is required for terminating the services of respondent no.2. 5. On being noticed, the respondent no.1 University appeared and filed their response opposing the petition and contending that Management Council is not in the office since the tenure of the Management Council which was in the office, has expired. 6. The Senate election process is on. The Management Council would get constituted only after Senate Elections are over. Therefore, proposals submitted by the petitioner could not be processed. In the 3` circumstances the University has expressed its inability to consider the proposal within the period of one month as prayed by the petitioner. 7. Having heard the parties and considering the genuine difficulty faced by the University, it is not possible at this stage to issue any positive direction to the University to consider the proposal of the petitioner since the Management council of the University is not in the office. 8. In the aforesaid fact situation and considering the consensus between the parties, interest of justice would be served by directing respondent no.1, Nagpur University to include the proposal of the petitioner in the agenda of the first meeting of the Management Council so as to enable it to constitute its Sub -committee as required under Direction No. 22 of 2002 and to issue directions to the said sub-committee to finalize the report within six weeks from the date of its first meeting with further direction to place the said report for consideration and necessary decision before the Management Council in the next scheduled meeting wherein the Management Council is expected to take decision with expeditious despatch and if possible the Management Council should confirm the minutes of the said meeting in the very meeting so as to avoid any possible delay in the matter. 4` 9. So far as the second prayer of the petitioner seeking declaration that no prior permission of the University is necessary needs no adjudication at this stage, in view of the above direction issued to the University keeping the said question open. 10. We make it clear that we should not be understood to have examined merits or demerits of the action taken by the Management Council. All the contentions on merits are left open for being considered by the Management Council. 11. The petition is disposed of in terms of this directions. Order accordingly with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE patle 5`