1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.W.NO.2581 of 2011 in WRIT PETITION NO. 358 of 1993. Dr.(Mrs.) Jayashree Pradeep Andhare ..vs.. Nagpur University through its Vice Chancellor, Nagpur and others. =-=-==-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. S.V.Purohit, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.P.C.Marpakwear, Adv. for R.2 and 3. Mr. Bhangde, Adv. for respondent no.4. C ORAM : D.D.SINHA AND A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : 16th NOVEMBER, 2011. Civil application No.2581 of 2011 is moved by the respondent nos.2 and 3 – Management for dismissal of the petition on the ground that the petitioner has tendered his resignation on 31/12/2011. The following facts are not in dispute - That the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Subject Bio Chemistry in the year 1992 by respondent nos.2 and 3. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 25/1/1993 issued by respondent no.4 - Nagpur University thereby the management was informed that the approval granted to the petitioner as a lecturer in Bio Chemistry was only for a period of one year. The writ petition was admitted and by virtue of the 2 interim order, the petitioner continued to serve as a lecturer in the said subject till the date of her resignation. The salary of the petitioner for the period for which she has discharged her duty as a lecturer has already been paid by respondent nos.2 and 3. It is in the circumstances, the learned counsel for the applicants (original respondent nos.2 and 3 – Management) pray that the writ petition be disposed of. Mr.Bhangde, learned counsel for respondent no.4 has submitted that the approval granted to the petitioner was only for period of one year, however, the petitioner continued to serve as a lecturer by virtue of the interim order. On the backdrop of the above referred facts, particularly in view of the resignation tendered by the petitioner, we do not propose to keep the petition pending. The same is disposed of accordingly. In the circumstances, it is for the respondent – Management to consider these aspects and act accordingly. Since the petitioner has resigned from the post, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending. Hence, writ petition is disposed of. Civil application is also disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE. chute 3