:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2674 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO. 2674 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO. 2674 OF 2003 Prof. Patrikar Seema Rajesh ] adult, Indian, Lastly working as ] a Lecturer in the Statastics ] Department, at the Respondent ] No.1 College, residing at A/204 ] Swati Dhuri Complex, Om Nagar, ] Ambadi Road, Vasai (W) ] Dist : Thane 401 202 ]..Petitioner versus 1. Laxmi Education Society ] having office at Nagardas ] Road, Andheri (East), ] Mumbai 400 069 ] 2. The Principal ] M.V.L.U. College ] Nagardas Road, Andheri (East)] Mumbai 400 069 ] 3. The Registrar ] University of Bombay ] Fort, Bombay 400 023 ] 4. State of Maharashtra, ] Mantralaya, Bombay 400 032 ]..Respondents Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar with Mr. Nilesh Bhutekar for the Petitioner Mr. Kiran Bapat with Mr. T. R. Yadav for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. P. M. Palshikar for the Respondent No. 3. Ms. J. Calcuttawala, AGP for the Respondent No.4 - State CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 16TH JULY, 2008. DATE : 16TH JULY, 2008. DATE : 16TH JULY, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : . The Petitioner has approached this court against :2: the Order of the Tribunal, which reads as under:- "a) The College Authorities shall reinstate the Appellant in her services at the same status, which she was holding at the time when her services were sought to be terminated by oral order dated 29.6.2002. This however, shall not affect the Appellant’s right to get University’s approval for her appointment as Full-time Lecturer and, it so decided by the University, she will be appointment as Full-time Lecturer. b) The college Authorities shall process the Appellant’s appointment further as per rules and as per orders of High Court Decision cited above within 4 months from the date of this order. c) Respondent No.4 is directed to pay the salary of the Appellant according to the laid down procedure. d) No order as to costs." 2. Thereafter the petitioner accepted the reinstatement and has subsequently resigned. 3. Mr. Warunjikar, learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the reinstatement was not in accordance with law and the petitioner was reinstated on terms and conditions of service other than in her original appointment. There is no material in support of this contention. 4. The appointment order on record shows that the :3: petitioner has been appointed on a temporary basis. The reinstatement must be accordingly on the same basis on which she was appointed. 5. It was next contended by Mr. Warunjikar that the Tribunal has left the question of the petitioner’s approval open and that the University has not passed any orders in respect of her approval. 5. Learned counsel for the University states that the petitioner’s approval for the year 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 has been considered and decided. However, he states that if there are no orders pertaining to the approval for the subsequent period till the time the petitioner was in service, the University will consider the question if request for approval is forwarded by the Management. 6. Management is hereby directed to forward the request for petitioner’s approval within a period of eight weeks from today to the University, if not already forwarded. Upon receiving the request for approval, the University shall take a decision according to law within a period of eight weeks. Petition disposed of. :4: 7. Rule answered accordingly. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)