D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

( 1 ) RULE, returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.

( 2 ) THE Petitioner is in the employment of the Fourth respondent as a lecturer and has been allotted to work in an educational institution conducted by the Fourth Respondent at nagthane in the Taluka and District of Satara. The service details regarding the Petitioner are as follows :i) Between 20th July, 1992 to 17th October, 1992; 11th July, 1993 to 4th June, 1994; 29th August, 1994 to 24th August, 1995; 2nd september, 1996 to 15th October, 1996 the Petitioner was appointed in leave vacancies; ii) From 20th July, 1998 to 30th April, 1999 the Petitioner was appointed on clock hour basis; iii) Between 12th October, 1999 till 19th June, 2000 the petitioner was appointed during the period of study leave of an existing teacher by a local selection committee; iv) Between 12th September, 2000 to 30th April, 2001, the appointment of the Petitioner was on a clock hour basis; v) On 21st June, 2002 the Petitioner was given a full time appointment for the year 2002-2003 upon selection by the local selection committee; vi) On 20th September, 2002 the Petitioner was appointed again on clock hour basis and this was followed by full time appointments for the period between 23rd June, 2003 to 30th April, 2004 and between 15th June, 2004 to 30th April, 2005.

( 3 ) FROM the material which has been placed on the record, it is admitted that all appointments save and except for an appointment dated 12th July, 1994 were by the local selection committee. On 12th July, 1994 a University selection committee had recommended the appointment of the Petitioner though specifically in a leave vacancy. The substantive relief that has been sought in these proceedings is to the following effect:"this Honble Court by an appropriate writ, order, direction in the like nature it may be declared that : (i) the Government Resolution No. NGC-1201/ 11815/ (38) / 01/ue-4, dated 18. 10. 2001 issued by the Respondent No. 1 state of Maharashtra as illegal and the same may be quashed and set aside. (ii)The letter bearing No. Outward No. Affiliated/ Gen/ 11700 dated 14. 3. 2005 issued by the Director of the Board of colleges and University Development i. e. Respondent no. 3 University as illegal and the same may be quashed and set aside. "

( 4 ) IN so far as the first of the aforesaid reliefs is concerned, the challenge to the Government Resolution dated 18th October, 2001 stands finally adjudicated upon by a judgment of a Division bench of this Court in V. L. Shirsath v. State of Maharashtra (2002 (4) BCR 664), where save and except for clause 2 (b) of the government Resolution which is held to be unsustainable, the rest of the Government Resolution has been upheld. That being the position, these proceedings, in so far as the challenge to the government Resolution dated 18th October, 2001 is concerned, will be governed by the judgment and order of the Division Bench noted above.

( 5 ) THE second limb of the challenge is to a letter dated 14th march, 2005 written by the Director of the Board for College and university Development of the Shivaji University. The University has in its affidavit in reply explained that what the letter dated 14th march, 2005 directs is conformity with the provisions of the statutes of the University. Statute 195 (3) provides that all appointments to posts are required to be made on merit on the basis of a widely published advertisement as approved by the University. The statute prescribes the constitution of a selection committee for teachers to the following effect:"selection Committee for Teachers: 1. Chairman, Governing Body of the College/ Recognised institution or his nominee to be the Chairman of the selection Committee; 2. A nominee of the Vice-Chancellor; 3. A Nominee of the Vice-Chancellor belonging to backward Class Community; 4. One expert to be nominated b