JUDGMENT :

Shailesh P. Brahme, J.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

2. The petitioner is an educational institution which runs Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad (hereafter referred as to the ‘Law College’) and Dr. (Smt.) Indirabai Bhaskarrao Pathak Mahila Arts, Commerce and Science College, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred as to the ‘Mahila college’). Both the colleges are aided colleges. The law college was established in the year 1956, whereas Mahila College was established in the year 1971. The petitioner is challenging the communications dated 11.03.2022, 04.05.2022, 24.06.2022, and 14.09.2022 issued by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 thereby insisting the petitioner institution to get the roster verified from the competent authority and treating the posts of Principal of these two colleges amenable to the policy of reservation. The claim of the petitioner that principal is an isolated post and reservation policy is not applicable stands rejected, impliedly.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the post of principal in the Mahila College fell vacant on 01.05.2022 because of the superannuation. On 05.01.2022 a proposal was forwarded by the petitioner seeking permission for the recruitment of the principal directly. So far as the law college is concerned the acting principal is to attain age of superannuation on 30.09.2023.

4. The age of superannuation for the principal in the senior colleges is 62 years, same is extendable to 65 years as per the Government Resolution dated 05.03.2011 and G. R. dated 23.03.2011. For extending the age from 62 years to 65 years, a procedure is prescribed to be followed by the educational institutions. An incumbent is required to be assessed by performance review committee. It is also contemplated that before granting extension beyond 62 years an attempt should have been made for recruitment by publishing an advertisement. It is the case of the petitioner that a care was taken that before the said post falls vacant the communication was made to the respondents to secure permission for publishing an advertisement, which is a step towards direct recruitment.

5. It is further case of the petitioner that on 25.01.2022, proposal was submitted to the respondent No. 1 seeking permission for recruitment of principal as well as seeking approval for publishing the advertisement. On 11.03.2022, the respondent No. 1/University addressed a letter to the petitioner stating that the proposal be submitted after securing no objection from the Assistant Commissioner Backward Class Cell, Aurangabad. On 04.05.2022, the respondent No. 5 addressed a letter to the respondent No.1. A copy of which is forwarded to the petitioner stating that the post of principal is amenable to the policy of reservation and as per the new policy the verification of the roster be done by submitting a proposal to its office.

6. On 14.09.2022, the respondent No. 2 addressed a letter to the respondent No. 2/Joint Director informing that the policy of the reservation and the provisions of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers Cadre) Act, 2021 (for short “Act of 2021”) are applicable to the post of principal. It was further stated that as per Section 2(61) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (for short “Act of 2016”) the principal is included in the definition of teacher. Similar kind of correspondence was made by the Director with his subordinate officers and to the universities vide letter dated 14.09.2022.

7. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner was directed to secure verification of roster for the post of principal in both the colleges. After determining the point of roster for the post of principal, the proposal for approval of the advertisement is directed to be submitted to the university. The petitioner claims that the post of principal is an isolated post and it is not amenable to the