1 587.11 SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.587 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2205 OF 2005 Mukund Kashinath Dhamake ...Applicant Versus Director of Ayurved Maharashtra State & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Ms.Seema Sarnaik for Applicant. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.M.S.Karnik for Respondent No.2. Mr.R.V.Govilkar for Respondent No.3. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED:- JULY 25, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. We are in agreement with the submission made by the applicant/petitioner before us that the applicant be allowed to participate in the selection process for the post of Professor initiated pursuant to the advertisement which has appeared on the website of the College, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner in the pending Writ Petition. The petitioner has already applied pursuant to the said advertisement on 7th January, 2011. 2 587.11 3. Since the said selection process is in respect of regular appointment on the post of Professor which is independent than the post which is subject matter of pending Writ Petition, we have no difficulty in acceding to the request of the applicant to allow the applicant to participate in this selection process without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner. Indeed, the claim of the petitioner will have to be considered along with other eligible candidates, subject to the outcome of the Petition. In the event, the applicant is appointed on the post of Professor which is now advertised after participating in the selection process and even if the applicant were to fail in the Writ Petition, this appointment would be unaffected, as it is in respect of post which is independent than the post which is subject matter in the Writ Petition. Whereas, if the applicant were to succeed in the Writ Petition the applicant would be entitled for relief as may be granted by the Court in the pending Petition, in which case, the post of Professor against which the applicant will be appointed pursuant to the selection process in terms of advertisement at page 30, would fall vacant. 5. In view of this arrangement, question of expediting the hearing of Writ Petition does not arise. That request is rejected. 3 587.11 6. Application disposed of on the above terms. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)