1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 4054/2010. Kishor Bharat Kude -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JULY 06, 2011. Civil Application (W) St.No.11706/2011. Heard Shri A.S. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for petitioner/applicant. He is points out that though the advertisement for recruitment published by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 is after 11.07.2009, approval thereto by the respondent University is dated 22.05.2009. In the circumstances, Civil Application is allowed. Necessary amendment be incorporated forthwith. 2 Civil Application (W) No.3150/2010. In view of the orders passed on above Civil Application, present Civil Application No. 3150/2010 is not pressed by the petitioner, the same is disposed of accordingly. …....... WRIT PETITION NO. 4054/2010. Heard Shri A.S. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent no.1 and Mrs. A. Palsodkar, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. By consent matter is taken up for final disposal, hence Rule, returnable forthwith. Shri Chandurkar, learned Counsel contends that after approval to the proposed advertisement by the University [respondent no.2] on 22.05.2009, the advertisement dated 16.07.2009 was published and the Competent Selection committee then selected the petitioner who came to be appointed on 16.10.2009. Accordingly he joined the services on 3 16.11.2009 and on 27.04.2010 the respondent no.2 University has refused to approve his appointment on the ground that he does not fulfill the requirements as laid down by the University Grants Commission. He points out that those requirements have come into force on 11.07.2009 i.e. after the approval to the advertisement by the University and the controversy is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 738/2011 with connected matters, decided on 22.06.2011. Learned Counsel for respondent no.2 does not dispute the fact that on 22.06.2011 in similar circumstances this Court has found rejection of approval unwarranted. Learned Addl. Government Pleader for respondent no.1 states that the issue is between the respondent no.2 University and the petitioner. Having heard the respective counsel, we find the controversy squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment dated 22.06.2011 in Writ Petition No. No. 738/2011 with connected matters. In this view of the matter, the impugned communication dated 4 27.04.2010 is quashed and set aside. The respondent no.2 University to consider the proposal for approval in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders upon it at the earliest possible. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd