1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4382 OF 1995 Shivaji Babasaheb Mulay, C/o Bhagat Madam, Gurav Nagar, Pimpalbhat, Alibag, Dist. Raigad, 402 201. ..... Petitioner V/s. 1. The State of Maharashtra, Bombay. 2. The University of Bombay, University Bldgs., Bombay. 3. The Secretary, Janata Shikshan Mandal, Alibag, Dist. Raigad, 402 201. 4. The Principal, JSM College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Alibag, Raigad Dist. 402 201. 5. Miss Rajashri Shantaram Chaupara C/o J.S.M. College, Alibag, Dist. Raigad, 402 201. ..... Respondents Mr.N.M.Ganguli, for the petitioner. Mr.A.I.Patel, AGP, for respondent No.1. Mr.Shreekant V. Gavand, for respondent Nos.3 and 4. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 08th June, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER R.M.SAVANT, J. ) :- 1. The substantive relief claimed by the petitioner in the above petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is that the 2 respondents be directed to de-reserve the post the post of Lecturer in Physics and continue the petitioner as Lecturer in Physics on regular permanent basis. To claim such relief, petitioner has placed reliance on the Notification No.BCC/89 of 1994 dated 02-03-1994. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner, though admittedly appointed in a post reserved for the backward class, has been continued for five academic terms and therefore, respondent Nos.3 and 4 were obliged to send a proposal to the State Government to get the said post de-reserved. The facts as disclosed in the petition show that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent Nos.3 and 4, reserve category candidate became available and was appointed as such, who is respondent No.5, in place of the petitioner. The petitioner has accordingly been discontinued in the year 1995. 3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4, on instructions, states that the said post of Lecturer in Physics is still occupied by a candidate belonging to backward class i.e. reserved category. It would be pertinent to note that the above petition was filed in the year 1995, claiming the said relief of directing the respondents to de-reserve the said post. In the context of the facts which have taken place in the interregnum, namely that candidate belonging to reserve category has infact been appointed to the said post and considering the fact that a 3 period of 15 years has elapsed after the services of the petitioner have been discontinued, it is not possible for us to grant any relief in the above petition. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition would have to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )