1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Civil Application (CAW) No.1368 of 2011 in Writ Petition No. 2131 of 2010 (d) Dr. Vijay Tulshiram Ingole VERSUS State of Maharashtra and 3 others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R. C. Madkholkar, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for respondent no.1 & 4 Mr. V. A. Kothale, Advocate for respondent no.2 Mr. S. G. Jagtap, Advocate for the respondent no.3 Mr. D. M. Upadhye, Advocate for the applicant-intervener CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 1st August, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that by the judgment dated 17.08.2010, this Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the applicant and directed the respondent- college to maintain status-quo in regard to the petitioner’s service for a period of three months from the date of the judgment. It appears that a statement was made by the management before this Court, during the hearing of Writ Petition No. 2131 of 2010, that they intended to continue the applicant’s services beyond the age of superannuation and they would take necessary steps, as prescribed by law for continuing the petitioner’s services. This Court, in such circumstances, observed that the University was entitled to insist on the superannuation of the 2 petitioner unless his services were extended or he was re-appointed in accordance with law, which the respondent-institute was free to do. In view of the Direction No. 09 of 2003, it appears that in case the management is desirous of appointing the superannuated Principal of the same college as a Principal, till he attains the age of 65 years, only the proposal in that regard needs to be submitted to the University for grant of approval. In view of Clause 4 of Direction No.9 of 2003, it is not necessary to issue an advertisement and re-appoint the Principal of the same college as that process needs to be undertaken only if the management is desirous of appointing a retired Principal of another college as the Principal of the college in question. In the instant case, though the proposal of the applicant is sent by the respondent-management to the University, the University has not rejected the proposal till this date. In such circumstances, it is necessary to re-extend the interim protection granted by this Court by the judgment dated 17.08.2010 in Writ Petition No. 2131 of 2010 for a further period of four months. The civil application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale