- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.734 OF 2008 Prof.Moses H.Ezekiel. .. Petitioner Vs. The Principal & Ors. .. Respondents -- S/Shri Alok Gupta i/b Mihir Desai for the petitioner. S/Shri A.A.Joshi i/b T.S.Patwardhan for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri B.V.Phadnis for the respondent No.3. Sindha Sridharan for the respondent No.4. -- CORAM : SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & SRI A.A.SAYED, JJ DATED : 15TH JULY, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocates for the parties. 2. Rule. By consent, the rule made returnable forthwith. The learned advocates for the respondents waive service. 3. The petitioner in the case in hand joined the respondent college as a Lecturer in Accountancy on a reserved post for a period from 18th July, 1994 to 20th April, 1995. The respondents could not find a - 2 - suitable candidate from the reserved category for the said post inspite of repeated advertisements being published for seven consecutive years. Being so, the petitioner was continued to be reappointed every year during the said period. Consequent to such re-advertisement for the said post for seven years, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 asked the University to de-reserve the said post under their letter dated 21st April, 2000. However, the University by its letter dated 27th September, 2007 referring a letter dated 11th September, 2007 received by it from the State Government, informed the college that the proposal for de-reservation was rejected on the ground that initially the advertisements were not disclosing subject-wise reservation, and therefore, directed the respondent college to re-advertise the said post for Nomadic Tribes. 4. The petitioner placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.1316 of 2000 and Writ Petition No.33 of 2007 has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the order dated 11th September, 2007 of the Government and the order dated 27th September, 2007 of the University and for further direction that the post occupied by the petitioner should be treated as de-reservation post - 3 - and the petitioner be regularised as duly appointed Lecturer in Accountancy, and therefore, being entitled for regular salary attached to the said post. 5. It is not in dispute that the facts of the case in hand are similar to the facts of the case in the matter of Ashok Chandrashekar Rao v. University Ashok Chandrashekar Rao v. University Ashok Chandrashekar Rao v. University of Mumbai & Ors., of Mumbai & Ors., of Mumbai & Ors., in Writ Petition No.3101 of 2004 which was disposed of by a division bench of this Court on 26th April, 2005. Indeed, in the said case also, a prayer for de-reservation was sought to be rejected by the State on the ground that when the post was advertised, the advertisement clearly did not specify for which category of backward class candidate the post was reserved and secondly that on the sixth occasion there was no clause reflecting interchangeability. The division bench following its earlier decision delivered on 11th April, 2005 in Writ Petition No.2676 of 2004 in the matter of Mrs Mrs Mrs.Chandana Chandana Chandana M.Rege v. The Principal, Ramnarain Ruia College of M.Rege v. The Principal, Ramnarain Ruia College of M.Rege v. The Principal, Ramnarain Ruia College of Arts & Science, Mumbai & Ors., Arts & Science, Mumbai & Ors., Arts & Science, Mumbai & Ors., held that though there was no specific indication that the post was reserved for a specific category of a reserved candidate, it was not the case that the posts were not advertised showing reservation and what was not indicated was merely specific reserved category, and therefore, it - 4 - cannot be said that there was no specific compliance of the requirement of law and taking the said view of the matter, rejection in de-reservation was held to be bad in law. Since the facts of the case in hand are similar to the case of that of Ashok Chandrashekar Rao Ashok Chandrashekar Rao Ashok Chandrashekar Rao (supra), (supra), (supra), the decision for rejection of the reservation in the case in hand cannot be sustained applying the law laid down in the said decision read with the decision in the matter of Mrs.Chandana M.Rege (Supra). Mrs.Chandana M.Rege (Supra). Mrs.Chandana M.Rege (Supra). 6. In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds on the above ground and is to be allowed bearing in mind the decisions of a division bench of this Court in the matters of Ashok Chandrashekar Rao Ashok Chandrashekar Rao Ashok Chandrashekar Rao (supra), (supra), (supra), and Mrs.Chandana M.Rege (Supra). Mrs.Chandana M.Rege (Supra). Mrs.Chandana M.Rege (Supra). Hence, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c), with no order as to costs. ( R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J ) ( A.A.SAYED, J )