AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7810 OF 2008 Dr. Mrs. Prasita Pravin Kshirsagar ... Petitioner Vs. The Maharashtra University of Health Science & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. S.M. Oka for the petitioner. Mr. R.V. Govilkar for respondent 1. Mr. M.M. Malwankar for respondents 2 and 3. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C.:- 1. According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as lecturer in respondent 3 Medical College on 12/4/1994 and respondent 4 was initially appointed as a lecturer in the same college on 24/5/1995. According to the petitioner, on 21/11/1997, he as well as respondent 4 were appointed as Associate Professors, but they started AJN 2 working as such from 1/1/1998. The petitioner’s case further is that his appointment was approved from 1/1/1998 and respondent 4’s appointment was approved from 1/1/1999. Respondent 4 wrote a letter dated 3/6/2008 to respondent 1 requesting respondent 1 to approve his appointment to the post of Associate Professor from 5/11/1997 instead of 1/1/1999. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent 3, without verifying the service records and other necessary documents, granted approval to the appointment of respondent 4 from 5/11/1997 to the post of Associate Professor. The petitioner was not even heard and respondent 1, by its order dated 27/6/2008 granted approval to the appointment of respondent 4 with effect from 5/11/1997. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 3. 3. Learned counsel for respondent 4 is not present. We AJN 3 were asked to keep back the matter on the ground that he is busy in some other court. Normally, we would have kept back the matter but, we find that similar request was made before this court on 29/6/2009. A Division Bench of this court presided over by Justice J.N. Patel observed that in the absence of counsel for respondent 4, the court was unable to take up the matter. The Division Bench, therefore, directed respondent 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the officials of respondent 3 by way of costs for the adjournment. We are informed by learned counsel for respondent 3 that the costs are not yet paid. Therefore, respondent 4 is in contempt of this court’s order. In the circumstances, the request to keep back the matter is rejected. 4. We find that the seniority is decided by respondent 3 without hearing the petitioner. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the impugned order needs to be set aside without going into the merits of the case and respondent 3 needs to be directed to pass appropriate order after AJN 4 hearing the petitioner and respondent 4. Hence, we pass the following order. 5. Order dated 27/6/2008 passed by respondent 1 is quashed and set aside. Respondent 3 is directed to determine the seniority of the petitioner and respondent 4 after giving them hearing in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order by it. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the order may be passed independently and in accordance with law. Respondent 3 is directed to communicate the order passed by it to respondent 1. Upon receipt of the said order, respondent 1 shall pass appropriate order thereon in accordance with law. 6. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [A.A. SAYED, J.]