1 ca3800-11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3800/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3930/2010 Dr.Vishnu Ramdas Gunjal .. Applicant Versus The North Maharashtra University and another ... Respondents .... Mr.S.R.Barlinge,Adv.for applicant. Mr.A.B.Girase,Adv. for respondent no.1. Mr.S.P.Brahme,Adv.for respondent no.2 ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL AND T.V.NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 18TH NOVEMBER ,2011 ORAL ORDER 1] Heard. 2] The petitioner approached this Court by above Writ Petition. By order dated 12/10/10, the Court passed following order : 2 ca3800-11.odt “1] Rule. 2] Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was appointed prior to 1999 and further that the petitioner has also acquired the Ph.D. qualification, we are inclined to grant relief in terms of prayer clauses [D] and [E].” 3] The petitioner was a Lecturer in a college run by Bhagini Mandal, Chopda. The petitioner was selected as Principal of respondent no.2 Adhyapak Shikshan Mandal, Taloda, Dist.Nandurbar. By communication dated 21/12/2009, the University intimated the respondent no.2 that as petitioner did not pass NET/SET examination, approval is not granted to the appointment of the applicant as Principal. This communication was subject matter of present Writ Petition. It is admitted fact that the petitioner served as Principal in the respondent no.2 college till 22/12/2009. 4] The learned counsel Shri Brahme appearing for respondent no.2 submits that after 22/12/2009, the applicant did not discharge his duties as Principal. He joined his post as Lecturer in the college run by Bhagini Mandal, Chopda. The respondent no.2 requested for a fresh advertisement for appointment of Principal. The university accordingly granted permission. An advertisement came to be published consequent to the permission granted by the university. 5] The applicant moved this Court in Civil Application No.3800/2011 on 3 ca3800-11.odt 20/5/2011. The learned Vacation Judge passed following order on 20/5/2011: “1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 are absent. 2] The learned counsel for the applicant states that the respondent No.1 University has already published a advertisement calling applications for the post of principal which is presently held by the petitioner. 3] In the circumstances, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 shall not fill up the post of principal till 22nd June, 2011.” 6] The learned counsel for the applicant prays for direction that the University be directed to grant approval to the appointment of applicant as Principal from the date of his appointment till the final decision of Writ Petition No.3930/2010. 7] Learned counsel Shri Girase appearing for respondent University submits that the University, consequent to the order passed by Division Bench of this Court on 12/10/10, issued a communication dated 14/12/2010 addressed to respondent no.2 wherein, the applicant’s services as Principal were approved till 22/12/2009. According to the counsel appearing for respondent University, the University was bound to comply with the order passed by this Court in these proceedings. 8] We have considered the facts of the case, orders passed by this Court 4 ca3800-11.odt and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 9] From the record placed before this Court, it transpires that after 22/12/2009, the applicant left respondent no.2 college and joined the college run by Bhagini Mandal, Chopda as Lecturer. According to the learned counsel for respondent no.2, there is no written intimation or correspondence exchanged between the parties in respect of the applicant leaving respondent no.2 college after 22/12/2009. Therefore, respondent no.2 took steps to fill in the post of Principal by seeking sanction to issue a fresh advertisement so that the selection process can be undertaken to appoint a new Principal. 10] From the record placed before this Court in Civil Application, it is pointed out that the applicant worked as Lecturer from 1/12/2009 to 22/12/2009 and thereafter, he left the post without written intimation to the management according to the counsel appearing for the management. There was no option left with the management than to seek permission of the University for filling the post. The applicant joined his original post as Lecturer in other college. In these facts and circumstances, we do not find the prayer made by the applicant reasonable and proper. Application stands rejected. The interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. (T.V.NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)