The main legal point established is that there was no valid statutory provision providing for reservation in the post of Principal, and the posts of Principal in different colleges run by the same institution could not be clubbed together for reservation purposes.

S.S. SHINDE, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the communication/order dated 16/04/2015 issued by respondent No.3 with further prayer to quash and set aside the said communication/order, with further direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner-institution to fill up the post of Principal from open categry candidate in both the Colleges run by the petitioner-institution.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner society is registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and Societies Registration Act. The petitioner trust is working in the field of Education and runs two colleges; one at Omerga namely Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji College, Omerga and another at Makani namely Bharat Shikshan Sanstha's college, Makani, taluka Lohara, dist. Osmanabad. wherein the posts of Principals are vacant.

4. It is further case of the petitioner petitioner institution sought permission to fill up the post of Principal. The respondent No.3 by the communication / order dated 16.4.2015 refused to grant permission as sought in the application dt.2.2.2015 and asked the petitioner to reserve one post for S.T. Category. Hence, this petition.

5.The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment dated 25.03.2014 delivered by this Court in the cas of Marathwada Sarvoday Shikshan Prasarak Mandal vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. in Writ Petition No.7333 of 2013, as also the judgments referred therein and submitted that this petition deserves to be allowed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, similar issue was involved in the case of Vidya Prasarak Mandal vs. University of Mumbai1 and in the said judgment, it is held that, there cannot be reservation to the post of Principal. He further submitted that, in the case of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India 2 the Apex Court has also held that, the certain services and positions on account of nature of duties attached to them or the level (in hierarchy) at which they obtain merit as explained above, in such situation, it may not be advisable to provide for the reservation. The learned Counsel for petitioner further invited our attention to the judgment in Writ Petition Nos. 5118 of 2009 and 7191 of 2012 wherein similar issue was involved. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has held therein that, the post of Principal is single cadre post and reservation policy cannot be applied for filling up the post of Principal thoug the institution runs various colleges which are governed by same University. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, the communication issued by respondent No.3 is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and the Bombay High Court.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to the pleadings in the petition, annexures thereto and submitted that, respondent No.3 herein, has no authority to direct the petitioner to reserve one post of Principal for the candidates from reserved category. It is submitted that, colleges run by the petitioner-society are separate and independent colleges. Each college has separate entity and post of Principal has to be considered as a single post. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the issue raised in this petition is no longer res integra and is covered by the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Curt and the Bombay High Court, which are referred to in the foregoing paragraphs. Therefore, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submited that, the petition deserve to be allowed.

7. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

8. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and also learned A.G.P. appearing for respond