1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1425 /2011 ( Venugopal S.Narsingoju and another vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ DATED : 25th April, 2011. Heard Mrs. C.S. Bhute, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. N S Khubalkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1; Mr B G Kulkarni, for respondent no.2 and Ms. C.N.Ganvir for respondent no.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is identical to one involved in bunch of Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 1489/2010 and others; which were decided by the common judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 2.7.2010. The operative part of the order reads thus :- “(i) Rule in all these writ petitions is made absolute. (ii) It is declared that the petitioners in all these writ petitions are governed by the University Grants Commission by virtue of UGC ( Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement 2 of teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it ) (2nd Amendment ), Regulation 2006 dated 14.6.2006 and are qualified and eligible as being appointed as Lecturers. (iii) Respondent-University consequently is directed to consider the issue of approval to the appointments of the petitioners afresh in the light of this judgment.” Learned counsel prays that the present Writ Petition may also be disposed of in terms of the above referred order passed by this Court. Mr Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 does not dispute the factual and legal aspect of the matter including the fact that the issue stands covered by the above-referred decision rendered by this Court. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. Since it is not in dispute that the issue is covered by the earlier Division Bench judgment, we dispose of the present petition in the terms of the decision dated 2.7.2010 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court. JUDGE JUDGE sahare