Wp 3463/10 1 IN THE HICH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3463/2010 Nagendra K.Jadhav Petitioner Vs. The Principal Yashwantrao Chavan Mahavidyalaya Respondents Halkarni & Ors. Mr.S.S.Pakale a/w Mr.Kiran Kumar Phakade for petitioner Mr.Amit Borkar for Res.3 Mr.C.R.Sonawane ,AGP for Res.4 & 5 CORAM- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE 21st April,2011 P.C. . Heard counsel for the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 to 5. 2 Inspite of service none appears for respondent nos.1 and 2. 3 The relief claimed in this petition is to issue directions to respondent nos.1,2,3 to grant approval for the appointment of the petitioner as full time lecturer in History subject. It is stated that the petitioner has completed more than 8 years of service in respondent no.1-College,but he is still awaiting the approval for his appointment as full time lecturer from the University. The respondent-University has filed reply affidavit to oppose this petition. It is stated that the Wp 3463/10 2 petitioner was not appointed through the University Selection Committee which is the regular process for appointment to the post of full time lecturer. 4 The fact that the petitioner did not possess the prescribed qualification on the date of his initial appointment is undisputed. However, the case of the petitioner is that later on the petitioner has acquired the requisite qualification and was, therefore, entitled to be considered for the appointment to the post of full time lecturer in History. Counsel for the University, however, points out that the University has not received any proposal in connection with the petitioner for considering him to be appointed in the post of full time lecturer in subject History in respondent no.1-college after the petitioner has acquired the requisite qualification. If such proposal is received the University shall consider the same on its own merit. The petitioner will have to abide by the requirement of appearing before the University Selection Committee 4 In view of the above, we dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy through proper channel. The petitioner shall submit his representation to respondent nos.1 Wp 3463/10 3 and 2 within two weeks from today. On receipt of such representation the respondent no.1 and 2 will process the same and forward it with their recommendations to respondent no.3, who in turn will take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law. Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 assures that the proposal will be scrutinised and appropriate decision will be taken by respondent no. 3 within four weeks from the date of receipt of report of the University Selection Committee. We hope and trust that respondent no.3 shall complete the process not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the proposal from respondent nos.1 and 2. 5 At this stage counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is presently in employment his service may be protected till the final decision is rendered by respondent no.3 on the proposal. 6 In our opinion, until final decision is taken on the proposal of the petitioner, the petitioner be continued in the same position as is working at present . This protection will continue for maximum period of ten weeks from today. This protection,however, will not create any right in favour of the petitioner nor it will be open Wp 3463/10 4 to him to claim any equity at a later stage. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR ,J.)