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.3103 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.3103 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.3103 OF 2004 Vivek Ramdas Gaval Residing at Room No.D/11 University Staff Quarters C.S.T.Road, Vidyanagari, Santacruz(East), Mumbai-400 058. ..Petitioner Vs. 1.University of Mumbai Through the Registrar University of Mumbai Mumbai-400 032. 2.University Institute of Chemical Technology Through its Director University of Mumbai Matunga, Mumbai 400 019. 3.University Grants Commission Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi 110 002. 4.State of Maharashtra Through its Official Associate, High Court,Mumbai 5.Union of India Aykar Bhawan, Marine Lines Mumbai 400 0020 ..Respondents ----- Mr.C.U.Singh with Ms. M.D’Souza i/b. M/s.Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for Petitioner Mr. Rui A Rodrigues with Mr. B.v. Phadnis for Respondent No.1 & 2 Mr.M.D.Naik, A.G.P. for Respondent No.4 Mr. Kiran J. Khanpile for Respondent No.5 CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & S.P. KUKDAY, JJ. S.P. KUKDAY, JJ. S.P. KUKDAY, JJ. DATE: 26TH APRIL, 2005. DATE: 26TH APRIL, 2005. DATE: 26TH APRIL, 2005. JUDGMENT (PER F.I.REBELLO,J.) JUDGMENT (PER F.I.REBELLO,J.) JUDGMENT (PER F.I.REBELLO,J.) . Rule. Heard forthwith. 2 2. The Petitioner is holding the post of Lecturer in General Engineering with Respondent No.2. He was appointed to the said post in the year 1992 by order dated 4th January, 1992 and continues to hold the said post. The Petitioner has approached this Court pursuant to the rejection by Respondent No.2 of the proposal put up by Respondent No.1 for de-reservation of the post. 3. The contentions raised in the present Petition are same and similar as were raised in Writ Petition No.3101 of 2004. The stand of Respondent No.1 University is similar. Respondent No.4 has also rejected the case of the Petitioner for similar contentions as set out in Writ Petition No. 3101 of 2004. 4. The only issue which is being dealt in this Petition is the rejection of the permission sought by Respondent No.1 from Respondent No.4 for de-reservation of the posts. For the reasons given by us whilst disposing of the Writ Petition No.3101 of 2004, the decision of Respondent No.4 is liable to be quashed and set aside. The judgment in the case of Mrs. Chandana M. Rege Vs. The Principal, Ramnarain Ruia College of Arts and Science, Mumbai & Ors. in writ Petition No.2676 of 2004 decided by us on 11th April, 2005 will also apply to the facts of 3 the present case. 5. Considering that the Petitioner has been holding the post for a long period, nonavailability of a reserved candidate and substantial compliance in so far as advertisement is concerned, the Petition ought to be allowed. 6. In the light of that Respondent No.2 is directed to regularise the Petitioner in the post of Lecturer from January, 1992. Considering that the Petitioner stands regularised from January, 1992. The Petitioner would be eligible for promotion to the next higher post on merits. 7. Respondent No.2 to issue orders accordingly and consider the case of Petitioner for promotion to the next higher post. Rule accordingly made absolute. No order as to costs. (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (S.P. KUKDAY,J.) (S.P. KUKDAY,J.) (S.P. KUKDAY,J.)