1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICMTURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 3866 of 2008 Naresh v. RS Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University and ors ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr Anand Parchure, Adv for petitioners Dr B.G. Kulkarni, Adv for respdt no.1. Mr A. Naik, Advocate for respdt no. 2. Mr A.A. Naik, Advocate for respdts 6 & 7 Mr S. Borkar, Adv for respdts 3 & 5. Coram : D.D. Sinha and A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 9th January 2009 1. Heard Mr Anand Parchure, learned counsel for petitioner; Dr B.G. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent no.1; Mr A.A. Naik, learned counsel for respondents no. 6 and 7 and Mr S. Borkar, learned counsel for respondents no. 3 and 5. 2. Grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that inspite of selection of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Physical Education with effect from 10.4.2006 by the competent Selection Committee constituted by the University, till 2 this date University has not granted approval on the ground that the appointment of petitioner after selection by the competent Selection Committee constituted by the University, has not been made by the Ad-hoc Committee constituted by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur by majority. Mr Borkar, learned counsel for respondents no. 3 and 5 and Mr A.A. Naik, learned counsel for respondents no. 6 and 7 have submitted that as per the direction given by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 27.3.2003, the Ad- hoc Body is constituted to take care of the affairs of the Trust and direction is also given to the said Ad-hoc body to take all decisions by majority. Strength of the Ad-hoc body is five. In the instant case, though the petitioner was selected by Selection Committee constituted by the Nagpur University, the decision to appoint petitioner as Lecturer (Physical Education) was not taken by Ad-hoc body by majority. Hence, the University did not grant approval to the post on which the petitioner was appointed. 3. Dr B.G. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the Nagpur University does not dispute above-referred factual aspect. In the circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition and direct respondents no. 3 and 5 as well as respondents no. 6 and 7 to approach the Joint Charity Commissioner for getting necessary clarification in this regard. 4. It is no doubt true that if there is inter-se dispute amongst members of the Ad-hoc Body, it is for the Joint Charity 3 Commissioner to consider this aspect and take decision accordingly. However, so far as grievance of the petitioner is concerned, it is not in dispute that selection of the petitioner was by the Committee which was independent Selection Committee constituted by the University which has found the petitioner qualified and eligible. We expect the Joint Charity Commissioner to consider as to whether in such situation, it is necessary to pass formal order of appointment by the Ad-hoc Body by majority. We further expect the Joint Charity Commissioner to resolve this issue within a period of six months from the date of filing of application/ proceeding by the above-referred parties. Mr Naik and Mr Borkar undertake to approach Joint Charity Commissioner within a period of four weeks from today. With these observations writ petition is disposed of. Judge. Judge. hsj