1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5844 OF 2011 (Dr. Vijay s/o Tulshiram Ingole vs. State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 30, 2011 Heard Shri Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 4, Shri Kothale, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2, and Shri Jagtap, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3. The petition is directed against the communication dated 4/11/2011 issued by the respondent no.3 Management in view of rejection of proposal dated 20/4/2011 submitted by the respondent no.3 to respondent no.2 University for 2 grant of approval. At the outset it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has an alternate remedy before the College Tribunal. Shri Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that if this Court is not inclined to show indulgence, in that event, the petitioner will undertake alternate remedy, however, the interim order whereby service of the petitioner is protected may be continued for a period of three weeks from today. Shri Kothale, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2, opposes request of the petitioner for continuation of the interim order. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it will be appropriate for the petitioner to undertake alternate remedy, if available in law, before the College Tribunal. It is not in dispute that service of the petitioner is protected for a long time and, therefore, in the interest of justice, the respondent no.3 is directed not to disturb the service of the petitioner for a period of three weeks from today. The protection shall cease to operate 3 automatically thereafter. The petition is disposed of as withdrawn. JUDGE JUDGE khj