1 wp5642.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5642 OF 2009 1. Ramchandra Sanskritik Krida Mandal, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Jalna (through the President). 2. The C.P. College of Education, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Jalna, District Jalna. (through: the Principal) Petitioners versus 1. The State of Maharashtra (through the Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Extension), Mumbai 32. 2. The Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad (through its Registrar) Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5645 OF 2009 1. Ramchandra Sanskritik Krida Mandal, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Jalna (through the President). 2. Bharat College of Journalism and Mass Communications, Bhakat Nagar, Revgaon Road, Jalna, Dist. Jalna. Petitioners versus 1. The State of Maharashtra (through its Principal Secretary, Highere and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2 wp5642.09 2. The Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, (through its Registrar). Respondents --------- Shri A.S. Deshpande with Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, Advocates for petitioners. Shri N. B. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1. Smt. R.R. Mane, Advocate, for Respondent No.2. Coram: Smt. Nishita Mhatre and M. T. Joshi, JJ. Date : July 5, 2011. Oral Judgment (Per: Smt. Mhatre, J.) 01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties. 02. Petitioner No. 1 in both the petitions is an educational institution running two colleges-petitioners No. 2 in both the petitions. By judgment dated 3.12.2008 in Writ Petition No.2216 of 2006, the Nagpur Bench of this Court had directed all the colleges, which were being run with a person officiating or acting as Principal, to appoint a regular Principal for the college within the time stipulated by the Court. Accordingly, Respondent No.2- University issued an order directing the petitioners to appoint a regular Principal. 3 wp5642.09 03. Several Special Leave Petitions were filed in the Supreme Court by the aggrieved colleges and all these appeals were heard together by the Supreme Court. By its judgment and order in Bharat Ratna Indira Gandhi College of Engineering vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011 AIR SCW 2473, the Court has held that the High Court ought not to have passed orders suo motu without there being a petition on which they are passed. 04. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court has, in paragraphs 11 and 12, held as follows; "11. By the impugned order, the High Court has directed that if the Colleges fail to fill in the post of Principal by 31st May, 2009, the University will issue orders in the first week of June, 2009 prohibiting admissions in the Colleges concerned. 12. In our opinion, no such direction could have been validly given by the High Court. If there is no permanent Principal, obviously the Acting Principal shall officiate as Principal, but that does not mean that in the absence of the permanent Principal, admissions to the College should be prohibited. There is no 4 wp5642.09 statutory rule that in the absence of a permanent Principal, admissions in the Colleges cannot be made, Thus, the High Court has indulged in judicial legislation, which is not ordinarily permissible to the Courts vide Divisional Manager, Arvali Golf Club & another v. Chander Hass & another (2008) 1 SCC 683 : (AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 360)." 05. The Court further directed that the process of filling up the posts of Principal to various colleges should continue in accordance with law and should be done expeditiously. 06. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the impugned order dated 24.6.2009, which is admittedly based on the decision of the Nagpur Bench of this Court, cannot survive and, therefore, is set aside. However, we direct that the petitioners shall undertake steps to appoint the Principals in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 07. We have been informed by the learned Advocate for the University that the communications had been issued to various Colleges on 6.1.2011 with regard to appointment of the Principals, as well as other matters. As regards the appointments of the 5 wp5642.09 Principals within a stipulated time, we have already held that the said appointments will be governed by the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court and the directions contained therein. We are not concerned with the other directions issued by the University in the aforesaid letter. 08. Petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. (M. T. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) pnd/wp5642.09