1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.923 OF 2009 Jagannath s/o Choturam Bhagure, R/o Viveknagar, Nanded. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Ramanand Teerth Marathwada, University, Nanded, Through it's Registrar, 3) The Director, Higher Education, Central Building, Maharashtra State, Pune. 4) Nanded Education Society, Through its Secretary, 5) Principal, Science College, Nanded, 6) G.M. Kalamse, R/o-Ramand Nagar, Pawadewadi Naka, Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Shri.Pradeep Deshmukh Advocate i/b. Shri. H.A. Joshi Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri.R.V. Ghuge, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Shri.S.V. Natu Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.U. CHANDWAL, JJ. DATE : 18TH DECEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner claims declaration to regularize his service period from 1989 to 1993. According to the Petitioner, he was appointed by the Respondent No.4 management as a lecturer in the year 1989 for one year. For the academic year 1990-91 the Petitioner worked in the institution situated at Beed. In the year 1991-92 the Petitioner was appointed for one year again by Respondent No.4 by through local committee but the 3 Petitioner was not appointed or he was not continued for the academic year 1992-93 with the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In the academic year 1993-94 the Petitioner was appointed by the University Selection Committee in a vacant post and in that capacity the Petitioner was continued as a regular appointee. 3. The Petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2346 of 2001 for the relief of identical nature. The Division Bench of this Court (Coram: R.M. LODHA AND A.B. NAIK, JJ.) on 28th June, 2002 passed following order: " Neither the Petitioner nor his counsel is present. Earlier also, this writ petition was dismissed in default, but later on restored. In this situation, as a matter of fact, the petitioner and his counsel must have taken sufficient care in appearing before us today. However, as none appears for the petitioner, we are constrained to dismiss the 4 writ petition in default." 4. It is reflected from the record placed before this Court that the Petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.3076 of 1997 with the following prayers: "a) To quash the impugned letter dated 16.10.1996 of the respondents no.2 and 3 refusing to condone the break in the service of the petitioner as Lecturer by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. b) To direct the respondents to grant annual increments, confirmation and permanent approval to the appointment of the petitioner and all other consequential benefits as a consequence of condonation of break in the service of the petitioner by issuing a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction." 5 5. The said Writ Petition was admitted by this Court and is pending for final hearing. 6. Learned counsel Shri Deshmukh submitted that after the Writ Petition No.2346 of 2001 was dismissed in default, the Petitioner approached the Grievance Committee and the Hon'ble Governor, the Chancellor of the University. By communication dated 19th November, 2004 the Grievance Committee of the University rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for giving him approval to the services with continuity of services from 1989 onwards. It is submitted by the counsel for the Petitioner that in respect of the representation made by the Petitioner before the Grievance Committee, the file was closed by the Chancellor and accordingly the same was communicated to him. 7. Shri Ghuge, the learned counsel appearing for the University submitted that the Petitioner shall not be permitted to agitate the same issue before this Court in the third attempt as earlier the 6 Petitioner had filed two Petitions, out of which one got dismissed in default and another is already admitted and is pending for final hearing. It was submitted that the Petitioner has suppressed the material facts and he is mis- utilizing the forum of this Court by agitating the same issue repeatedly for which the Petition deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs. 8. The Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 have filed affidavit in reply, which we have perused. 9. We are convinced that the petitioner has no cause of action to agitate the identical issue in this Writ Petition when in fact the Writ Petition No.3076 of 1997 raising identical issue was admitted by this Court and is still pending adjudication. The Petitioner even resorted to alternate remedies by approaching the Grievance Committee and the office of the Chancellor. We in fact deprecate the tendency of the Petitioner to approach this Court by filing Petitions for the 7 same cause of action. Prima facie, we are not convinced with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner on merits. The University Selection Committee selected the Petitioner for the academic year 1993-94 in a vacant post and since thereafter the Petitioner is in regular appointment. The earlier appointment orders issued in the year 1989 and thereafter in the year 1992 for one year period each, could not and does not entitle the Petitioner to claim the relief as prayed for. The Petition sans merit, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.1000/-. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] asb/DEC09/wp923.09