1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 247/2008 (Shadab Edn. Society & anr. Vs. The State & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : MARCH 11, 2008. Heard Mr. Haq for the petitioners, Mr. Jichkar, A.G.P., for respondent nos.1 to 4, and Mr. Parchure for respondent no.6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioner no.2- College had submitted an application to respondent no.5- University for permission to start Urdu subject in the petitioner no.2- College, on 26th November, 1993. However, it is submitted that on the earlier occasion, inadvertently, it was contended that the subject Urdu was included in the petitioner no.2-College prior to 8/8/1991. 2 Mr. Haq, the learned counsel for the petitioners, further submitted that the petitioner no.2- College had submitted the proposal to the respondent no.5- University on 17th October, 1994, seeking permission to fill up several posts in the petitioner no.2- College, including the post of Lecturer in Urdu. The respondent no.5- University granted permission to fill up this post. It is further contended that in the next academic session i.e. 1995-1996, the petitioner no.2- College again submitted an application to the respondent no.5- University seeking permission to fill up the posts of Part Time Lecturers including for Urdu subject. Said permission was also granted by the respondent no.5- University and, therefore, the petitioner no.2- College filled up the vacancies in view of the said permission, including that of Lecturer for Urdu subject. The counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that since the appointment of the Lecturer in Urdu subject was made by the petitioners after seeking permission from the competent authority, as well as after following due procedure applicable in this regard, there 3 was no necessity to obtain permission from the State Government as required by Government Resolution dated 8/8/1991. Mr. Jichkar, the learned A.G.P., has submitted that the application for grant of permission to start Urdu subject was, for the first time, submitted in the year 1994 and the communication dated 19/3/1994 annexed with the petition as Annexure-II issued by the Assistant Registrar, Nagpur University, reveals that though the recommendations were made by the University in favour of the petitioners for starting the said subject, however, that does not mean a permission to admit the students was granted. It is further contended that the State Government has not granted any permission till this date to the College to start/include Urdu as subject in the College. However, the State has, for the first time, granted permission to start Urdu subject in the petitioner no.2- College in the year 2006, on a permanent no grant basis. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. Since 4 the above referred facts are more or less not in dispute, it is evident that the petitioners would not have started Urdu subject before 2006 since, in view of Government Resolution dated 8/8/1991, it is obligatory on the part of the petitioners to seek prior permission from the State Government before starting new subject in the College, which was admittedly not obtained by the petitioner before 2006. Merely because the permission was granted by the respondent no.5- University to fill up the vacancies including that of Lecturer in Urdu subject, it does not either dilute or relax the mandatory requirement stipulated under the Government Resolution dated 8/8/1991. Consequently, the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is misconceived and devoid of substance. No case is made out for showing indulgence. Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE RMP