1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2991 OF 2009 Vd. Manoj Ramkrishna Runghe ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. S.T. Shelke,Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. V.D. Rakh, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri. K.D. Bade Patil, Advocate for respondent No.4. Shri. V.S. Bedre, Advocate for respondent No.5. Shri. V.M. Kagne, Advocate for respondent No.7. Shri. V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent No.12. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE: 16th DECEMBER 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) Shri. Gangadhar Shastri Gune Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Ahmednagar, which is affiliated to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, advertised 14 posts amongst which one 2 post was of Lecturer in the subject of "Samhita Siddhant". A Selection Committee was constituted as per rules. There is no dispute that, the interviews were held for this post. The petitioner participated in the selection process by appearing before the Selection Committee along with respondent No.12. 3) The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No.12 and there are certain deficiencies in the candidature of respondent No. 12 on account of age, qualification and that the respondent No.12 was considered as a candidate belonging to reserved category. 4) The University, the management and respondent No.12 have filed affidavits-in-reply. The respondent No.12 has refuted the allegations made by the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent No.12 states that the respondent No.12 was selected as a candidate from open category. 3 5) After hearing the learned counsel for the contesting parties for some time and perusing the documents and Government Resolutions we find that the issues raised by the petitioner relate to questions of facts which is not permissible in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. There is another reason to say so for us as the proposal for approval of the selection and appointment of respondent No.12 was already forwarded by the management to the University which is pending consideration of the University. It is informed to us that as the issue is sub judice before this Court the University has not passed final orders on the proposal. 6) Without entering into the merits of the claim made by the contesting parties and without prejudice to the rights of the parties we observe that the University shall take a final decision on the proposal forwarded by the management in respect of selection of respondent No.12 taking 4 into consideration the allegations made in the petition by the petitioner, the stand adopted by the management, the respondent No.12 and the law. We direct the University to pass appropriate final orders in this regard on the proposal within a period of six weeks from today. The decision shall be communicated to the petitioner, the respondent No.12 and the management accordingly. 7) We clarify that in case the petitioner is aggrieved with the decision of the University, the petitioner may resort to appropriate remedies as permissible in law to him. We express no opinion on the merits of the case. 8) The writ petition is disposed of. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.2991.09