Kambli 1 wp1235.95 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. WRIT PETITION NO.1235 OF 1995 ... Dr.V.Kurusu ...Petitioner v/s. The Principal, Kelkar Education Trust, Vinayak Ganesh Vaze college of Arts, Science and Commerce, Mulund, Bombay & ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.B.G.Tangsali for the Petitioner. Mr.Piyush Shah for Respondent No.1. Mr.M.D.Naik, AGP for State. Mr.Rui Rodrigues for Respondent No.3. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED: 20TH OCTOBER,2010 P.C.: 1. The Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the College of the Respondent No. Kambli 2 wp1235.95 1 on 26-7-1991. The post was advertised as a post reserved for Scheduled caste. As no suitable candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste was available, the petitioner was appointed. The post, thereafter, every year was advertised as reserved post for scheduled caste, but as no suitable candidate became available, the Petitioner was appointed. Ultimately, a proposal was submitted by the Management to the State Government for de- reservation of the post. The State Government, however, by communication dated 13th December, 2002 rejected the proposal. The State Government directed that again the post should be advertised once in the newspaper and if again scheduled caste candidate does not become available then the proposal should be resubmitted. It is this order which is challenged in the present petition. Kambli 3 wp1235.95 2. According to the Petitioner, as per the order made by the Vice Chancellor of the Bombay University No.BO.BCC/39 of 1994 a vacancy reserved for backward class is to be advertised for a period of five years. If a suitable candidate belonging to that category of backward class is not available, then an application can be made to the Government for its no objection for de-reservation of the post. In our opinion, therefore, once it is found that the post has been advertised for 5 consecutive years and still backward class candidate was not available, then the State Government was not justified in not giving its no objection and asking the Management to advertise the post once again. In our opinion, therefore, the order dated 13-12-2002 will have to be set aside and the Government will have to be directed to de- reserve the post. It is accordingly so Kambli 4 wp1235.95 directed. 3. The Petitioner also claims in the petition an order that the Management should be directed to regularise his service. In support of this proposition the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on the order dated 26th October, 2004 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2614 of 2003 (Mrs.Chandana Chakraborti v/s. M.L.Dahanukar College of Commerce & ors). In that case a person continuing as a Lecturer in a reserved post for more than 5 years was directed to be regularised in that post. We see no reason to take a different view from the one taken by the Division Bench in the above referred case. In view of the binding precedent, we direct the Respondent No.1 to regularise the service of the Petitioner in the post of Lecturer in the Kambli 5 wp1235.95 subject of Business Economics. 4. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.Deshmukh,J.) (N.D.Deshpande, J.)