1. In both these petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 25.09.2006 and 19.02.1999 passed by Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Nagpur.

2. In writ petition No. 812/2007 by an order dated 01-02/04/2007, the learned Single Judge has passed the order, which is reproduced as under:- .The Division Bench of this High Court (Coram:- R. M. Lodha and R. S. Mohite, JJ) ini W. P. No. 1983/2003; Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey (SNDT) Women's University & Anr. ..vs.. Dr. (Mrs.) Nita S. Dodd & Ors. has held that the order passed by the University and College Tribunal is covered by Clause (40) of Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules and amenable to the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge. However, the another Division Bench of this High Court (Coram:- B. H. Marlapalle & J. H. Bhatia, JJ) in Civil Writ Petition No. 2011/2006; Prof. Shashikant B. Kulkarni ..Vs.. The Principal, BPCS College of Physical Education, Mumbai & Ors. in para No. 2 held as follows:- .At the threshold, Mr. Anturkar submitted that the petition would lie before the Single Bench. Admittedly, the impugned decision is that of the University and College Tribunal constituted under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and presided over by a retired Judge of this Court. We have no doubt in our mind that the decisions of the University and College Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal, DART, the State of Maharashtra Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well as the decision rendered by the Tribunal under the Administrative Act, 1985 should be challenged before the Division Bench and such petitions would not lie before the Single Bench as per the existing Appellate Side Rules of this Court. Hence, we over rule the first contention that the petition should be placed before the Single Bench.. In view of above, Office is directed to place the present writ petition before appropriate Division Bench for appropriate orders..

3. As we have noted that the Division Bench (Coram:- R. M. Lodha and R. S. Mohite, JJ) while dealing with Clause (40) of Rule 18 in question, in Writ Petition No. 1983/2003, Shrememati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey (SNDT) Women's University & anr. ..vs.. Dr. (Mrs.) Nita S. Dodd & Ors.; passed an order on 06.04.2005, based upon the same rule and in para 2, to 6 observed as under:-

"2. We are unable to countenance the view of the lear2ned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge overlooked clause (40) of Rule18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960 which specifically refers to the orders passed under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. As per clause (40) of Rule 18 of Chapter XVII, the orders passed under Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 are amenable to the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge. The reference to clause (39) by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order is wholly irrelevant.

3. The view of the learned Single Judge that the University and College Tribunal is presided over by a retired Judge of this Court and its decision, therefore, cannot be termed as a decision of the Court or Tribunal subordinate to this Court as contemplated under Clause (3) of Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the High Court, Appellate Side Rules is also erroneous. Rule 18 (3) and (4) read thus.

18. Single Judge's powers to finally dispose of applications under Article 226 or 227. Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 1, 4 and 17 of this Chapter, applications under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution (or applications styled as applications under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Article 226 of the Constitution) arising out of (3) the decrees or the orders passed by any Subordinate Court (or by any quasi-judicial authority) in any suit or proceeding (including suits and proceedings under any Special or Local Laws), but excluding those arising out