JUDGMENT :

NEELA GOKHALE, J.

1. Rule. The contesting Respondents have filed Affidavits in Reply. Heard by consent of parties. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The Petitioner seeks directions to the Respondents to condone a gap in his service, which in turn entitles him to retirement benefits. He further seeks quashing of an Order dated 4th January 2022 passed by the 3rd Respondent rejecting his representation for condoning the gap in service as claimed by Respondents.

3. The Petitioner worked as an Assistant Professor in the 1st Respondent College of the 2nd Respondent University, till his superannuation. The 3rd Respondent is the Directorate of Technical Education of the 4th Respondent State of Maharashtra.

4. The emerging facts in the case are that prior to the Petitioner being employed in the 1st Respondent college, he served as Principal in Maharashtra College of Pharmacy from 19th April 1987 to 18th August 1991. There was approval of the 3rd Respondent to his said employment. Thereafter, he served as Principal at the Institute of Pharmacy run by the Shivajinagar Vidya Prasarak Mandal, for two years on probation period after which his services were confirmed. He served there fo