Judgment B.R. GAVAI, J.: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing. 3. The present petition is a classic case as to how the private Managements, who are receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government are disobeying the directions of the State Government from whom they receive grant-in-aid and thereby harassing the employees who are at their mercy. 4. The petitioner was appointed in a clear and permanent vacancy in the respondent No. 5 College as lecturer with effect from 17-11-1988. 5. It appears that initially the post of Principal could be held by an incumbent for a unlimited period. However, the University Grants Commission, which is undisputedly the Central Council insofar as the matters regarding Higher Education are concerned, framed Regulations in September, 2009 called as “UGC Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2009”. As per Regulation No. 5.1.6, the term of appointment of the College Principal shall be for a fixed period of Five years with eligibility for reappointment for only one more term after undergoing a similar selection committee process. 6. The State Government, taking into consideration the fact that the post of Principal was a tenure post, has issued Government Resolution dated 15-3-2011 wherein though the provision of grant of lien in other cases has been made only for a period of two years, the same has been made for five years insofar as the statutory posts are concerned. 7. One Ballarpur Seva Samiti had advertised on 8-6-2011 for filling up the post of Principal in its College, at Wadsa. The petitioner, being eligible, applied for the said post through proper channel. It is to be noted that the Principal of the College, where the petitioner was working, recommended the said application and has given ‘No Objection’ for application. Consequently, the petitioner, being successful in the selection process, came to be selected for the said post. The respondent University, vide order dated 11-1-2012, has also granted its approval for the period of five years or attaining the age of 62 years whichever is earlier. The said Ballarpur Seva Samiti accordingly issued order of appointment in favour of the petitioner on 15-1-2012. The petitioner, therefore, applied to the respondent No. 4 for grant of lien on 13-1-2012. The respondent University, vide order dated 11-1-2012, has also granted its approval for the period of five years or attaining the age of 62 years whichever is earlier. The said Ballarpur Seva Samiti accordingly issued order of appointment in favour of the petitioner on 15-1-2012. The petitioner, therefore, applied to the respondent No. 4 for grant of lien on 13-1-2012. Since the said application was not responded, after waiting for almost a period of one month, the petitioner has sent reminder on 6-2-2012. Since there was no reply, the petitioner has joined his duties on 10-2-2012 at the College wherein he was selected. It appears that subsequently on 23-2-2013, the respondent No. 5 addressed a communication to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why, without being relieved from the College, he had joined the services at some other College. The petitioner has duly replied to the said communication. 8. It further appears that on account of the inaction on behalf of the Management in giving him lien, the petitioner made a representation to various authorities including the University and Director of Higher Education. The University has also sought explanation from the respondent No. 5. It appears from record that the Director (Higher Education) has issued a communication dated 13th September, 2012 to the respondent No. 4 to grant lien to the petitioner. Since, in spite of the same, respondent No. 4 has not taken any action, the petitioner has approached this Court. 9. It is the contention of the petitioner that in view of the Government Resolution dated 15-3-2011, on selection of a lecturer for the post of Principal in some other College, the respondent Management is duty bound to grant a lien. It is submitted that since the Post of Principal is now a tenure post and if the Managements do not grant lien, It will not be possible to fill up any post of Principal. The learned counsel further submits that an authority of the State Government has issued a directive to the respondent Management, and that the respondent Management is bound to comply with the same. 10. Shri Parchure, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 4 and 5, on the contrary, submits that granting of lien is not a matter of right. 10. Shri Parchure, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 4 and 5, on the contrary, submits that granting of lien is not a matter of right. He submits that the question as to whether the lien should be granted or not is exclusively within the domain of the Management. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner, without seeking leave of respondents 4 and 5, has joined the services in other College and as such has committed indiscipline. The learned counsel further submits that in the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not have power to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent Management to grant lien since it is a matter of discretion of the management. 11. Smt. Bharti Dangre, learned Addl. G.P., appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Dr. B.G. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3, support the case of the petitioner. It is submitted that once the petitioner was selected in due selection process, the respondents 4 and 5 ought to have granted a lien to him in view of the post of the Principal being tenure post, for a specific period of five years. 12. Shri Parchure, learned counsel further submitted that the reason given for refusal of lien is genuine. The learned counsel submits that initially the petitioner was given lien for two years to better his qualification. It is submitted that the petitioner was teaching the subject of Chemistry and if the petitioner is given lien, the College would suffer inasmuch as a teacher to teach P.G. Students would not be available. Mr. Parchure, learned counsel further submits that the permission which was granted to the petitioner was only for making an application and not for joining the other College. 13. We find that the entire conduct of the respondent Management, to say the least is of harassing the person, who was duly selected in selection process conducted under the supervision of the University and the State Government and that too, after he was given no objection by the College. 14. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner prior to making the application for applying for the post of Principal in Mohsinbhai Zaweri College, Wadsa, had sought ‘No Objection’ of the respondent No. 5. There is an endorsement of respondent No. 5 to the following effect. 14. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner prior to making the application for applying for the post of Principal in Mohsinbhai Zaweri College, Wadsa, had sought ‘No Objection’ of the respondent No. 5. There is an endorsement of respondent No. 5 to the following effect. “College has recommended the said application and have ‘No Objection’ for application.” 15. On the basis of ‘No Objection’ granted to the petitioner, the petitioner has made an application to the College, which had invited the applications. Not only this, it is a respondent No. 5, who has granted Experience Certificate to the petitioner and has also wished him all the success in his future endeavor. On the basis of this ‘No Objection and Experience Certificate’, the petitioner faced the selection process. He was successful in the said selection process. Not only this but the respondent University, vide order dated 11-1-2012, granted approval to the selection. As per the order dated 11-1-2012, the said approval was to be valid for a period of one month and on the failure of the petitioner to join the College, same was to come to an end, at the expiry of the period of one month. Accordingly, the petitioner made representation to the respondent No. 4 on 13-1-2012 for grant of lien. For a period of one month, though the said application is received, the respondent No. 4 has not cared to respond. Since the period of one month, during which approval was to be alive, was coming to an end, second representation was made to the respondent No. 4 on 6-2-2012. To this also, the respondents gave deaf ear. Since the period of one month was to expire on 11-2-2012 the petitioner joined his services at Mohsinbhai Zaweri College, Wadsa on 10-2-2012 and gave intimation to the respondent No. 4 on the same day. Thereafter, on 23-2-2012, for the first time, show cause notice is issued to the petitioner by the Management. 16. The contention of Shri Parchure, the learned counsel that ‘No Objection’ which was given, was given only for making application and not for the purpose of joining, in our opinion, does not even sound to common sense. Thereafter, on 23-2-2012, for the first time, show cause notice is issued to the petitioner by the Management. 16. The contention of Shri Parchure, the learned counsel that ‘No Objection’ which was given, was given only for making application and not for the purpose of joining, in our opinion, does not even sound to common sense. If a person was not to be permitted to join services in other institute, then there was no purpose in giving him permission to make an application and also give him ‘No Objection and Experience Certificate’ along with best wishes for future endeavour. In that view, we find that the said contention is without any substance. 17. Apart from that the respondents 4 and 5 would now be estopped from requiring lien by application of Doctrine of Estoppel. We may gainfully refer to the Judgment of the Apex Court in case of B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy (Dead), reported in (2003) 2 SCC 355 : AIR 2003 SC 578 wherein para No. 37, it is observed as under: “If a man either by words or by conduct has intimated that he consents to an act which has been done and that he will not offer any opposition to it, although it could not have been lawfully done without his consent, and he thereby induces others to do that which they otherwise might have abstained from, he cannot question legality of the act he had sanctioned to the prejudice of these who have so given faith to his words or to the fair inference to be drawn from his conduct.” 18. It is, thus, clear that it is only on the basis of the ‘No Objection’ and recommendation given by the respondent No. 5 along with Experience Certificate, the petitioner had applied. On being selected, he immediately made an application for grant of lien on 13-1-2012. After waiting for a period of almost one month, since there was no response, he sent another reminder on 6-2-2012. However, till 10th February, 2012, there was no response from the respondent Management either granting permission or denying the same. The petitioner, therefore, bona fide believing that on the basis of the earlier ‘No Objection’ the respondent Management has ‘No Objection’ appears to have joined the services on 10-2-2012, inasmuch the period of approval granted by the University would have come to an end on 11-2-2012. The petitioner, therefore, bona fide believing that on the basis of the earlier ‘No Objection’ the respondent Management has ‘No Objection’ appears to have joined the services on 10-2-2012, inasmuch the period of approval granted by the University would have come to an end on 11-2-2012. Only after the petitioner has joined the services at another College, after a period of 15 days notice is issued to the petitioner. In that view, we find that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the aforesaid Judgment. 19. Insofar as the contention of Shri Parchure, the learned counsel that the lien is not a matter of right, the learned counsel is right in that aspect. However, it is to be noted the respondent No. 5 is receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. Not only that insofar as the regulatory measure including affiliation etc. is concerned, it comes under the regulatory jurisdiction of respondent No. 3. Insofar as the grants are concerned, it comes under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Director of Education. 20. In the case of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v.V.R. Rudani, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 691 , the Apex Court in clear terms has held that even to private Management which is under regulatory control of University and which receives grant-in-aid from the public exchequer, writ can be issued by this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, when an Officer of the State Government i.e. Director of Education has issued a direction to the respondents 4 and 5 to grant lien to the petitioner, we can very well in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 4 and 5 to comply with the directives issued by the Director of Education. 21. In that view of the matter, the Rule is made absolute in the following terms. The respondents 4 and 5 are hereby directed to comply with the directions issued by the Education Officer on 13th September, 2012 and grant lien to the petitioner with effect from 10th February, 2012 for a period of five years. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the said compliance shall be done within a period of eight days from today. The respondents 4 and 5 are hereby directed to comply with the directions issued by the Education Officer on 13th September, 2012 and grant lien to the petitioner with effect from 10th February, 2012 for a period of five years. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the said compliance shall be done within a period of eight days from today. Needless to state that on lien being granted, the proposal for grant of salary to the petitioner by the respective Colleges would be submitted to the Joint Director of Higher Education within a period of three weeks from today and on receipt of the said proposal, the Joint Director of Higher Education, Nagpur - the respondent No. 2 shall take necessary steps for payment of salary to the petitioner. Rule made absolute.