201wp5169.10.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5169 of 2010 (Sikandar B. Manware .vs. Kavi Kulguru Kalidas Sanskruit University, Ramtek and anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D. D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ. Date : 20/01/2011. Heard Mr.S.P.Bhandarkar, Adv. for the petitioner and Mr.B.G.Kulkarni, Adv. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. In the instant petition, the grievance of the petitioner is in respect of change in the terms and conditions of the advertisement, dt. 26.2.2010 issued by the respondent/University by issuing corrigendum on the next date i.e. 27.2.2010. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, as per the advertisement dt. 26.2.2010, applications were invited for filling up the posts in various cadres in the University. Condition No.5 of the advertisement dt. 26.2.2010 stipulates that, for all the posts to be filled in, there will be written examination for the candidates. The successful candidates will be short-listed for the interview. Passing these topics separately 201wp5169.10.odt 2 . in the examination is mandatory. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, on the next date i.e. on 27.2.2010, the corrigendum is issued and the procedure of selection has been modified by the respondent whereby the written examination, which was necessary by virtue of earlier terms and conditions of the advertisement, came to be deleted. It is submitted that the respondent could not have legally changed the terms and conditions of the earlier advertisement which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore, the corrigendum issued by the respondent cannot be sustained in law. Mr.B.G.Kulkarni, Adv. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 does not dispute the factual aspect of the matter that the advertisment dt. 26.2.2010 came to be withdrawn by issuing corrigendum by the University dt. 27.2.2010. It is also not in dispute that, by the said corrigendum, the procedure and conditions notified in the advertisement dt. 26.2.2010 were modified and the corrigendum was put on the web-site for information to the people at large. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as perused the advertisment dt. 26.2.2010 as well as the corrigendum 201wp5169.10.odt 3 . issued by the respondent / University dt. 27.2.2010. The short question which falls for our consideration is : whether the respondent/University is entitled to issue the corrigendum by modifying the terms and conditions of the advertisement dt. 26.2.2010 ? In the instant case, the University has issued corrigendum dt. 27.2.2010 immediately on the next date of issuance of the earlier advertisement dt. 26.2.2010 whereby the recruitment procedure and the other conditions mentioned in the earlier advertisement dt. 26.2.2010 are modified and the said corrigendum clearly mentions that the earlier notification stands withdrawn and the new notification by way of corrigendum was put on the web-site. We have no hesitation to hold that the respondent/University has power to issue corrigendum. In the instant case, the corrigendum was issued on 27.2.2010 whereby the earlier advertisement dt. 26.2.2010 came to be withdrawn. Since the advertisement dt. 26.2.2010 was withdrawn, the question of adopting the procedure of recruitment mentioned in the said advertisement does not arise. The procedure of recruitment mentioned in the corrigendum was required to be followed by the Authorities. 201wp5169.10.odt 4 . The corrigendum was put up on the web-site for information of the people at large. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not see any illegality in the action of the University. No case is made out for interference in the matter. Hence, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE jais