1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.W.NO.2582 of 2011 in WRIT PETITION NO. 345 of 1993. Dr. (Mrs.) Mrunalini Kishor Chiddarwar ..vs.. Nagpur University through its Vice Chancellor, Nagpur and ors. =-=-==-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. S.V.Purohit, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.P.C.Marpakwear, Adv. for R.2 and 3. Mr. Bhangde, Adv. for respondent no.4. C ORAM : D.D.SINHA AND A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : 16th NOVEMBER, 2011. Civil application No.2582 of 2011 is moved by the respondent nos.2 and 3 – Management for dismissal of the petition. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the writ petition is directed against the order dated 25/1/1993 whereby approval was granted to the petitioner as a Lecturer in N.K.P.Salve Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Center for the period of one year only. It is submitted that by virtue of interim order passed by this court at the time of admission of the writ petition, the petitioner continued to serve as a lecturer in the College till 30th April, 2009 and tendered her resignation on the same date i.e. 30th April, 2009. It is, therefore, contended that the cause of action in the present 2 petition no more survives. Mr.Bhangde, learned counsel for respondent no.4 has submitted that if the petitioner was not qualified, question of entitlement of the petitioner to receive the salary needs to be decided. On the backdrop of the above referred facts, it appears that by virtue of the interim order the petitioner continued to serve on the post of Lecturer and salary has already been paid by respondent nos.2 and 3 to the petitioner for the duty discharged by the petitioner as a lecturer. In the circumstances, it is for the respondent – Management to consider these aspects and act accordingly. Since the petitioner has resigned from the post with effect from 30th April, 2009, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending. Hence, writ petition is disposed of. Civil application is also disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE. chute