1 w8050.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8050 OF 2011 Ms.Archana Manoharrao Kadam .. Petitioner. Vs. The Chairman, Latte Education Society Sangli & Others .. Respondents. Mr.Prasad B.Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr.Ajit Kenjale for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr.A.S.Patil for respondent no.8. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED : 9TH DECEMBER, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition challenges the appointment of respondent no.8 as assistant lecturer on the ground that respondent no.8 does not possess required qualification for holding the said post. Mr.Kenjale, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 at the outset, on instructions, submits that respondent nos.1 and 2 would like to examine afresh whether respondent no.8 holds required qualification for the post of assistant lecturer and they are ready to give an opportunity of hearing to respondent no.8 and so also to the petitioner before taking final decision. He further submits that if respondent nos.1 and 2 find that respondent no.8 does not hold required qualification for the post of assistant lecturer they will forward the papers for appropriate decision with their S 2 w8050.11 recommendation to the university. In view of the submissions made by Mr.Kenjale, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 the petitioner does not press this writ petition and seeks direction to respondent nos.1 and 2 to decide the question raised in the present petition within timeframe. Learned counsel for respondent no.8 also seeks directions to the university to grant him an opportunity of being heard before they take final decision. In the circumstances we are satisfied that this petition can be conveniently disposed of by the following order: Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall decide the question whether respondent no.8 holds required qualification for holding the post of assistant lecturer as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order on merits in accordance with law and after giving an opportunity of being heard to respondent no.8 and the petitioner. If Respondent nos.1 and 2 find that respondent no.8 does not hold required qualification they shall forward the proposal for appropriate orders and directions to the respondent-university with their recommendations within a period of two weeks therefrom. The respondent-university before taking final decision on the recommendation made by respondent nos.1 and 2 shall give an opportunity of being heard to respondent no.8 and the petitioner and if necessary to respondent nos.1 and 2. If the final order of the university is adverse to respondent no.8, same shall remain stayed for a period of two weeks from the date of its communication to enable respondent no.8 to take appropriate remedy 3 w8050.11 against such order. At this stage we are informed that respondent no.8 was given appointment letter by respondent nos.1 and 2 on 1st October, 2011 subject to outcome of the present writ petition and since then he has been working as the assistant lecturer. In view thereof respondent nos.1 and 2 to allow respondent no.8 to continue to work till the final decision is taken by the university and for a period of 15 days therefrom as aforementioned. It is needless to state that if decision of respondent nos.1 and 2 is adverse to the petitioner and/or is in favour of respondent no.8 it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy before appropriate forum challenging the said decision. While passing this order we shall not be understood to have examined the question raised in the writ petition and/or expressed any opinion on merits of the case. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. (K.K.TATED,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)