M.S. SONAK, J. :-

With the consent of the parties, both the petitions are taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner is a Lecturer (Chemistry) at the D. G. Ruparel College of Arts, Science & Commerce (hereafter referred to as "the College"). The College is affiliated to the University of Mumbai (hereafter referred to as "the University"). The College is in receipt of aid from the Directorate of Higher Technical Education, State of Maharashtra (hereafter referred to as "the State"). The College, the University and the State have been respectively impleaded as parties in both petitions.

3. In writ petition no. 1940 of 2006, the Rule was issued on 26.04.2006. The petitioner, essentially seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the College, the University and the State to treat her as having been regularly appointed (on probation) to the post of Lecturer (Chemistry) with effect from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 23.07.1990 and thereafter to confirm her services after two years i.e. w.e.f. 23.07.1992 and to accord to her all corresponding and consequential benefits.

4. The grievance in writ petition no. 2463 of 2012, essentially concerns the non implementation of judgment and order dated 04.10.2011 passed by the College Tribunal reinstating the petitioner as regular permanent teacher in chemistry with continuity from the date of her initial appointment. The judgment and order dated 04.10.2011 set aside order dated 02.01.2008 by which petitioner's services were terminated on ground of reduction in workload and directed reinstatement as regular permanent teacher in Chemistry with continuity from the date of her initial appointment. The College in compliance with the judgment and order dated 04.10.2011 did reinstate the petitioner. However, no salary and other emoluments have been paid to the petitioner from the said date, though the petitioner continues to discharge duties as Lecturer (Chemistry). Hence, Rule in Writ Petition no. 2463 of 2012. With consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

5. The State of Maharashtra and the University contend that the judgment and order of the College Tribunal dated 04.10.2011 contains no directions as against them, although they may have been impleaded as parties to the proceedings. In the circumstances, they contend that they are not bound by the order of the College Tribunal. In the alternate, they contend that the petitioner having been appointed against the reserved post, there was no question of directing regularisation, unless the process for dereservation is duly complied with. In writ petition no. 1940 of 2006, the grievance of the petitioner concerns the inaction on the part of the College, University and the State in the matter of dereservation and consequent denial of regular appointment to the petitioner. In the circumstances, we deem it fit to take up and consider both the writ petitions together for the purposes of final disposal.

6. The factual matrix necessary for appreciation of the petitioner's case and the respondents response is set out hereafter:

(A) On 06.06.1990, the College issued an advertisement, interalia inviting applications for filling up post of full time Lecturer (Chemistry) from reserved category candidates. This advertisement, which shall hereafter be referred to as "1st advertisement", made it clear that in case candidates from reserved categories are not available, then candidates from open category may be considered for appointment on purely temporary basis for one academic year.

(B) In response to the 1st advertisement, the petitioner, who is open category candidate applied for and upon recommendation of duly constituted selection committee, came to be appointed by the College to the post of Lecturer (Chemistry) vide appointment letter dated 01.08.1990 on temporary basis w.e.f. 25.07.1990 for the academic year 1991. The selection committee interalia comprised representatives of the College/Management, nominee of the Vice Chancellor of the Universi