1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.457 of 2011 Ashish Rameshchandra Sharama Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. Respondents Mr. S.H. Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S. K. Kadam, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. A.B. Girase, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE M.T. JOSHI,JJ. DATE : 23rd March, 2011. PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] The petitioner, in this writ petition, has made the following prayers :- “(A) Be please to call, quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 24/2/2010 issued by respondent No.3 (Annexure “C”) (B) Be pleased to declare that the appointment of the petitioner is governed by University Grant Commission ( Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers in Universities and 2 institutions affiliated to it) (2nd Amendment), Regulation, 2006, dated 14/6/2006 and is qualified and eligible as being appointed as Lecturer. (C) Be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature of Mandamus and thereby direct the respondent NO.3 to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner.” 3] We have perused the impugned communication dated 24/2/2010, which says that approval to the appointment of the petitioner as lecturer cannot be granted since he has not cleared the NET/SET Examination. 4] Learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on the judgment of this court in “Sudhir Sharadrao Hunge Vs. State of Maharashtra and others” 2010(5) All M.R. 79, to submit that questions raised/involved in the present petition are squarely covered by the said judgment. He submits that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to approach the University afresh, with directions to the University to consider the petitioner's case afresh, in the light of the judgment of this court in “Sudhir Gunge's” case, (supra). 5] In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, we are satisfied that this petition can be conveniently disposed of, by the following order :- – : O R D E R :- (i) It is open to the petitioner to approach the University afresh, seeking approval of his appointment as Lecturer, within a period of 4 weeks 3 from today. (ii) If the petitioner makes such a representation, same may be considered and decided by the respondent No.3, in the light of the judgment of this court in “Sudhir Hunge's “ case (supra). (iii) If for any reason, respondent No.3 University is not inclined to grant approval despite the judgment of this court in “Sudhir Hunge's” case, they shall given an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard in the matter. (iv) The University shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation and shall communicate to the petitioner, their order, within a period of of two weeks from the date of the order. It is needless to state that the letter/order dated 24/2/2010 shall render ineffective if the representation of the petitioner, is allowed. (v) All contentions of the petitioner, are left open. It is also open to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings, if the representation is rejected, challenging the order of rejection, so also, the order dated 24/2/2010, which is impugned in this writ petition. An authenticated copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for petitioner, to act upon. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. [M.T. JOSHI,J] [D.B. BHOSALE,J.] grt/wp