1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1448 OF 2008 (Kalicharan Ramdas Tripathi vs. Mah. University of Health Sciences and others) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : APRIL 30, 2008 Heard Shri Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1, Shri Ghare, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, and Shri Kankale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.4. Shri Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that pursuant to the advertisement, petitioner applied for the post of Professor in the subject of Anatomy and also appeared before the Selection Committee. It is submitted that the petitioner was the only eligible candidate and, therefore, petitioner ought to have been appointed on 2 the said post. However, in view of communication dated 30.8.2007 addressed to the Principal, Ayurved College by the Head of the Education Department of respondent no.1 University, explanation was called whether Director of Ayurved or his representative was present at the time of holding interview by the Selection Committee and, therefore, for want of this information, necessary order of appointment could not be issued by the Competent Authority. It is further submitted that Selection Committee consists of six members including Director of Ayurved or his representative. It is contended that even if Director of Ayurved or his representative, for some reason, is absent at the time of holding interview, composition of Selection Committee does not get vitiated and, therefore, selection of the petitioner by such Committee cannot be said to be bad in law. Shri Ghare, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, does not dispute the above referred aspect and states that Principal of Ayurved College has already sent reply to the communication dated 30.8.2007 issued by the Head of Education Department of the respondent no.1 University. However, decision of the said Authority is awaited. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, we dispose of the petition with direction to the 3 respondent no.1 to consider the issue on its own merits according to law and procedure applicable in this regard, after taking into consideration the reply dated 3.9.2007 sent by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to the communication dated 30.8.2007 and after giving opportunity of hearing to the Principal of the respondent no.3 College as well as petitioner, as early as possible and in any case, not beyond the period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The issues raised in the petition are kept open. JUDGE JUDGE khj