qualification required for appointment to the post of Lecturer in History on a full-time basis and this position is not in dispute. The second aspect of the matter which is not in dispute is that the Petitioner was not appointed through the University Selection Committee. The Petitioner initially held the qualifications of B.Ed and M.A. which he had completed in 2001 and 2002. He acquired an M.Phil in 2009. Therefore, the admitted position is that: (i) At the time of initial appointment, the Petitioner did not fulfill the required educational qualification; and (ii) The initial appointment of the Petitioner was not made by the University Selection Committee. In that view of the matter, the decision of the University not to grant its approval cannot be faulted. The Fifth and Sixth Respondents representing the management shall now have to move the Shivaji University for constituting a University Selection Committee. If the Fifth and Sixth Respondents do so within a period of four weeks from today, it has been stated on behalf of the University that steps would be taken to constitute a University Selection Committee within a period of two months thereafter. The Petitioner would be at liberty to apply for selection through the regular process of selection before the University Selection Committee and if the Petitioner does so, his eligibility for appointment to the post of full-time Lecturer in History is kept open to be decided at that stage. In the meantime, since the Petitioner has continued to work with the Sixth Respondent since 21 June 2002 and having regard to the protection granted by the initial order of the Division Bench dated 21 April 2011, we continue the protection by a further period of three months from today within which period, the University Selection Committee shall take a necessary decision in accordance with law. This protection is granted on the
