The South Indian Education Society v. The University Of Mumbai

(912)-WP-1883-12.doc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1883 OF 2012 ALONGWITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.95 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1883 OF 2012 The South Indian Education Society ..Petitioner

Versus

The University of Mumbai ..Respondent Mr. Arvind G. Kothari i/by Ms. Nandini G. Menon, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Rui A. Rodrigues, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr. L. T. Satelkar, AGP for Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.1883 of 2012.

CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & A. M. BADAR, JJ.

DATE : 19th JANUARY, 2018 P.C.

1] Mr. Rui. A. Rodrigues, learned counsel appearing on behalf of University fairly concedes that the issue raised in the present Petition no more res-integra and covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (B. R. Gavai, J) is a party in Writ Petition No.444 of 2013 decided on 20th December 2017. 2] The Petition is allowed in the following terms. I) The action of the Respondent - University, in not considering the proposal for grant of approval to the BGP.

(912)-WP-1883-12.doc.

appointment of the faculty members of the Petitioner, on the ground that the draft advertisement is not approved is held to be illegal.

II) The Respondent - University is directed to consider/accept the proposals to be submitted by the Petitioner for grant of approval to the appointment of the faculty members.

III) On receipt of the such proposal, the same shall be decided in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such proposals.

IV) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 3] In view of disposal of Writ Petition, nothing survives in Contempt Petition. The same is also disposed of. [A. M. BADAR, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] BGP.