1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10989 of 2010 Devnagari Bahuddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Deoni Bk. Ta. Deoni Udgir Zilla Latur through its President Gundappa Shivrajappa Dhanure Age 60 years, Occ. Agril. r/o. Deoni Bk. Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur. Petitioner Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary Higher Education Department Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2]The Director of Higher Education Maharashtra State, Pune. 3] The Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Nanded, through Registrar. Respondents Mr.V.V. Tamke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.V. Wagh, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr. R.V. Ghuge, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR & S.S. SHINDE,JJ. DATE : 25th April, 2011. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] : 1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for final hearing. 2] By way of this petition, the petitioner institution has prayed that the circular issued by the University dated 17/25th June, 2010 be set aside. The University has given a notice asking the educational institutions to appoint principal in the colleges run by it, expeditiously, in view of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench at Nagpur, in this behalf. The University has also direction the petitioner institution not to enroll new students in case they fail to appoint principal before the end of the academic term. 3] Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the judgment delivered by the Nagpur Bench has been set aside by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 13944 of 2006, a copy of which is placed on record. The Supreme Court has held that there is no statutory rule that in absence of a permanent principal, admissions in the college cannot be given. On that ground, decision of the Nagpur Bench has been set aside. 4] Shri Ghuge, learned counsel appearing on bahelf of the University submits that, it is true that notice was given by the University on the basis of the decision given by the Nagpur 3 Bench, which order now is set aside by the Supreme Court. He, however, states that the institution should not remain silent for all times to come and should try to appoint a regular principal, expeditiously. 5] Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-institution submits that the institution will give an advertisement for appointment of the principal, expeditiously and will try its best to see that a regular principal is appointed, as early as possible, for which all attempts will be made by giving a proper advertisement. The said statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner is recorded. 6] In view of what is stated above, now, the notice issued by the University no longer survives. The same is set aside, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, referred to above. Petition accordingly partly succeeds by setting aside the impugned circular dated 17/25th June, 2010. However, the petitioner is directed to expedite the process for appointment of a regular principal, as per the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no orders as to costs. [S.S. SHINDE,J] [P.B. MAJMUDAR,J.] grt/wp