Shri. Sikandar S/O Bhagwan Manware v. The State Of Maha. Thr Its Secretary, Higher And Tech. Education Ministry, Mumbai And Others

wp1167.16 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.1167 OF 2016 Shri Sikandar S/o Bhagwan Manware -vsThe State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Higher & Technical Education Ministry, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 and ors ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.A.S. Gadmade, Adv. H/f Shri G.R. Sadar, counsel for the petitioner.

Mr.Anand Parchure, counsel for the R-3.

Mr.R.D. Wakode, counsel for the R-6.

Mr.H.D. Dubey, AGP for the R-1.

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : MARCH 30, 2016.

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the recruitment process conducted by the respondent-University for the appointment of the Academic Consultant and Regional Director of the respondent-University at Amravati. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent-University could not have appointed the respondent No.6 on the post of Academic Consultant and Regional Director as he has crossed the age of sixty years. It is stated that the respondent No.6 ought to have been held to be age barred.

Shri Anand Parchure, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University states that the appointment is made in accordance with law. It is, however, stated that it would not be necessary for this Court to decide the issue involved in the writ petition as the appointment of the respondent No.6 would come to an end on 31.3.2016 and

wp1167.16 2/2 the respondent-University should issue a fresh advertisement for appointment of Research Consultant and Regional Director on regular basis.

In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent-University, the issue involved in this case would be merely academic. Hence, by keeping the issue open, we dispose of the writ petition with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE !! BRW !!