1 aswp-2119-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2119 OF 2010 Solapur Vidhyapeeth Magasvargiy Adhivyakhyata and Shikshaketar Karmachari Sanghatna .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr. V.A. Londhe with Manoj S. Chatage for petitioner. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for respondent nos.1, 2 and 4. Mr. A.G. Damle with Mr. Nitin Mulye for respondent no.3. Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni with Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni and Rahul Gard for respondent nos.8, 11 to 13, 15, 17 to 44, 52 to 56, 58 to 60 and 68, 69. Mr. I.M. Khairdi for respondent nos.6 and 7. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE JJ. SEPTEMBER 06, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner which claim to be an Association duly registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926. The petitioner has challenged the State Government’s order dated 25/4/2008 as 2 aswp-2119-10 well as 19/1/2009 on the grounds that it is contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and the Rules framed thereunder. It is further alleged that while appointing the non teaching staff under the respondent no.3 – University, the policy of reservation has been given a go by. 2. The Regional Joint Director, Kolhapur Region has filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 4, whereas Dr. Nitin Sonaje has filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondent no.3 – University. 3. It is clear from the record that the respondent no.3 – University was established by Government Notification dated 22/7/2004 and with effect from 1/8/2004 and prior to this notification, the Solapur District was part of the Shivaji University at Kolhapur and at Solapur there was a Post Graduate Teaching Centre of Shivaji University. On the establishment of the respondent no.3 – University with effect from 1/8/2004, 21 employees from the teaching category and 41 employees from the non teaching category, on the rolls of Shivaji University, were transferred to the respondent no.3 – University with effect from 1/8/2004. 3 aswp-2119-10 On 11/5/2007, the State Government sanctioned 150 non teaching posts, which included 41 appointments already made. Thus, the University was required to recruit 109 additional non teaching staff members. It gave promotions for one post of Superintendent, three posts of Assistant Superintendent, eight posts of Senior Clerk, two posts for junior Clerk, one post of Havaldar and one post of Lab Assistant. All the promotions were from amongst the feeder cadre employees. The University submitted a letter to the State Government to fill in 116 vacant posts as and by way of direct recruitment, as the recruitment by promotion was not possible. The said proposal was approved by the impugned order dated 25/4/2008. 4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in fact, there were employees on the rolls of the respondent no.3 – University who could have been promoted. However, the affidavit-in-reply filed by the University clearly states that the University had to resort to direct recruitment or recruitment by nomination as there was no possibility of some of the posts being filled in by promotion. The affidavit further states that even the reservation policy has been strictly followed and out of 41 posts, 33 posts have been occupied by the erstwhile employees of the Shivaji University, who came to be transferred to the respondent no.3 – 4 aswp-2119-10 University. The affidavit filed by the University clearly makes out a case that the policy of reservation is being strictly followed and wherever possible to fill the posts from amongst the exiting employees by promotion, the same is being done. The recruitment by nomination is being resorted to only where it is not possible to fill in the post by promotion and more so because it is a newly established University. On the face of the affidavit submitted by the University, we do not find any merit in the challenge to the orders dated 25/4/2008 and 19/1/2009. We have also noted that the petitioner had come before this court in Writ Petition No. 115 of 2009 and the same was disposed as withdrawn. 5. Hence, this petition must fail at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected. (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)