( 1 ) WP No.923/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 923 OF 2011 Pankaj s/o Vijaykumar Deshmukh PETITIONER V E R S U S North Maharashtra University and others RESPONDENTS Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. N.S. Shaikh, AGP for respondents / State CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & A.V. NIRGUDE,JJ. DATED : 18th March, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The main prayer in the writ petition, reads thus : “A] By a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, or order or directions in the like nature, the respondents No. 1 and 2 be directed to select the petitioner for the post of Lecturer in English and grant approval to his appointment as Lecturer as full time Lecturer in English, with effect from 29-08-2009.” ( 2 ) WP No.923/11 3. Mr. Barlinge, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not considering the claim of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in English and granting approval to his appointment as full time Lecturer in English with effect from 29th August, 2009. Mr. Barlinge further submits that the points raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court dated 20th October, 2010 in Atul Suresh Patil & Ors v. The State of Maharashtra & others (W.P. No. 357 of 2010) and the Judgment dated 2nd July, 2010, in Sudhir s/o Sharadrao Hunge & another v. The State of Maharashtra and others (W.P. No. 1489 of 2010). He submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the directions are issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner’s claim, in the light of aforesaid Judgments of this Court, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Having considered the submissions of Mr. Barling, learned counsel for the petitioner, we are inclined to pass following order, without examining merits of the case. O R D E R 1. Respondents No. 1 and 2 shall consider the petitioner’s claim on the post of Lecturer in English, in the light of Judgments of this Court (in W.P. Nos. 357 of 2010 and 1489 of 2010) as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If for any reason respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not inclined to accept / admit the claim of the petitioner, they shall give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing reasoned order. ( 3 ) WP No.923/11 2. It is made clear that while passing this order, we have not considered merits of the case and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall consider the petitioner’s claim on merits, in accordance with Law. We also observe that we have not examined whether petitioner is entitled for the post, which he is claiming, in the writ petition. 3. The petitioner to communicate this order to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 alongwith copy of the writ petition and its annextures within four weeks from today. 4. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. ( A. V. NIRGUDE,J. ) ( D.B. BHOSALE,J. ) SRM/