{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.353 OF 2009 Mohd. Kasim s/o Gulam Hyder R/o Raj Mohd. Dargah Road, Udgir, Dist-Latur PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University, Seminari Hills Nagpur-6, Through the Registrar 2. Dr.Bhagwan Pandhari Dandge R/o Nagpur Veterinary College Seminary Hills, High Land Drive Nagpur-6 RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.K.T.Shirurkar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.P.G.Rodge, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.Ajay Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.2. ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 24th August 2009 PER COURT: 1. This petition has been filed, ostensibly, in public interest questioning the appointment of the second respondent to the post of Associate Dean from Scheduled Caste category by the {2} first respondent. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 had appointed respondent No.2 on the post of Associate Dean of the Veterinary College, Nagpur, without following the procedure which is prescribed under Statute 51 onwards. The principal challenge, therefore, in this petition is that respondent No.1 had appointed the second respondent without issuance of an advertisement. 2. On notice being issued to the respondents, respondent No.1 has filed its affidavit in reply and in the said affidavit in reply respondent No.1 has admitted that the second respondent came to be appointed without issuance of an advertisement. However, in para 4 i.e. sub para 2 of para 4, it is stated thus - “From the record it appears that, accordingly the University reappointed Dr.B.P.Dandge by assessment of his bio-data and interviewing him for further reappointment through a selection committee without publishing advertisement and calling applications (emphasis supplied). Accordingly Dr.B.P.Dandge came to be appointed on 09.10.2009.” In sub para of para 4, it is stated that the persons selected and appointed for the first time would be eligible for reappointment for another term of 3 years each, on assessment and recommendations by the selection committee after wide publicity through advertisement. 3. The second respondent has filed his affidavit in reply {3} and in the affidavit in reply it is stated that respondent No.2 had been appointed initially by appointment order dated 30th September 2009 for a period of 3 years, after following the procedure established by law. It is then stated that the second appointment of respondent No.2, by virtue of the order impugned in the present petition dated 09.10.2006, is in fact a reappointment for a further term of 3 years and consequently this being a reappointment, there was no necessity of following the procedure of issuance of an advertisement as reappointment is only to be done on the basis of assessment and recommendations of the selection committee. Respondent No.2, at para 3 of the affidavit in reply, has quoted the provisions of Statute 51 (3), which reads as under- “51 (3) The posts of Directors (except Director of Student Welfare), Deans of the Faculty, Associate Dean and Heads of the Departments, Registrar and other equivalent posts shall be filled in by nomination only. The above posts shall be filled in by nomination for each term of three years and persons selected and appointed shall be eligible for reappointment for another terms of three years each time on assessment and recommendation by the Selection Committee. In fact, this Statute is also annexed by the petitioner along with the petition. By virtue of Statute 51 (3) power is conferred in respect of reappointment to the posts which are filled in by nomination, by further term of three years on each occasion based on the assessment and recommendations by the Selection {4} Committee. 4. Respondent No.2, in affidavit in reply, has also questioned the bonafides of the petitioner in filing the present writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner is an erstwhile employee of respondent No.1 and the son of the petitioner had been appointed on daily wages and there was litigation pending in respect of absorption of the son of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 claims that since respondent No.2 and others were hurdle in the process of regularization or absorption of the son of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present petition in order to settle old scores with respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 also questioned the maintainability of the present petition which is a public interest litigation in respect of service matters. 5. From the perusal of the order impugned in the present petition, dated 09.10.2006, it is apparent to us that respondent No. 2 has been reappointed for a further term of 3 years pursuant to the provisions of the Statutes 51 (3), 57 and 61. As stated by us above, Statute 51 (3) deals with the powers of reappointment for a further term of three years based upon the assessment and recommendations of the Selection Committee. The question whether such reappointment could be done for a further term of three years without issuance of an advertisement or not is a question which is not necessary to be gone into by us at this stage, as term of 3 years of reappointment of respondent No.2 would {5} come to an end in less than one and half months from today. We also very much doubt the bonafides of the petitioner in filing the present petition. The petitioner cannot be said to be concerned in any manner with the appointment of respondent No.2. Though the petitioner claims to have submitted representation immediately after appointment of respondent No.2 i.e. on 10.10.2006, yet the petition has been filed in this Court on 25.11.2008 i.e. practically after two years of the appointment of respondent No.2. In the light of that, therefore, since term of respondent No.2 has come to an end, we refrain from deciding the issues. 6. The petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/-. Though we doubt the bonafides of the petitioner in filing and prosecuting this petition, yet we do not pass any order in respect of appropriation of the above said amount. The said amount be refunded to the petitioner. Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp353-09