1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. The petitioner filed a petition before the Hon'ble Chancellor, purportedly U/s 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, thereby challenging the appointment of the present Respondent No.4 to the post of Associate Professor for English subject. The petitioner had also applied for the said post, pursuant to the advertisement. The Respondent No.1 disposed of the said petition vide order dated 26.8.2012, by holding that the Respondent No.1 does not find any justification to interfere with the decision taken by the University authorities in the matter f selection and appointment of Respondent No.4 to the post of Associate Professor in English with the Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University. The petitioner has assailed the said order in the present Writ Petition.

4. Mr.S.M.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner during course of his lucid arguments canvassed following propositions:

(a) The order passed by the Respondent No.1 is against the principles of natural justice. No hearing has been given to the petitioner nor the petition