Mugdha Ravindra Pol And ORS v. Union Of India Thru Secretary, Ministry Of Commerce And Industries , Dept. Of Industrial Policy And

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.10309 OF 2019 1.Mugdha Ravindra Pol 2.Kranti Pritam Yadav 3.Maroti Sadashiv Kamble

4. Vivek Kumar Yadav 5.Shubhangi Namdev Vidhate

6. Rajesh Kumar Mishra

7. Manoj Kumar Manjhi

...Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and Ors.

...Respondents

....

Mr. Suhas Deokar with Mr. Chetan Alai with Mr. Rishab Vakharia I/b. Mr. Chetan Alai for the Petitioners.

Mr. Ashok Shetty with Ms Anamika Malhotra for the Respondents. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.

DATE : 10th JULY, 2019.

P.C.:- The aforesaid writ petition can be conveniently disposed of by the present order.

2.

Today when the petition is listed before us, the learned counsel for the Respondent has placed on record a communication addressed to him by Joint Registrar of Trademark and GI dated 26.06.2019. A statement is made in the said communication that the department had taken a decision to engage 75 examiners on contract 1/3

basis on account of the fact that the regular posts required to be filled in through UPSC was consuming some time and the process was in progress. Since the Petitioners were appointed on contract basis, their services came to be terminated at the end of period of contract. However, the statement is made in the said communication that in light of interim order passed by this Court and in order to maintain the public delivery system the Respondent is ready to engage 26 examiners who were appointed on contract basis to work till 31.03.2020 or till the appointment of the regular examiner through UPSC whichever is earlier. The said communication dated 26.06.2019 addressed to the learned counsel is taken on record. The statement made in the said communication is accepted as an undertaking to this Court and in the light of the said statement we dispose of the writ petition. 3.

The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that their services were put to an end inspite of the interim order passed by this Court. The learned counsel for the Respondent makes a statement that within a period of seven days, the Petitioners will be issued with an order of appointment and they would be permitted to resume their work. Statement accepted.

4.

In the light of the said statement contained in the said 2/3

communication, the grievance raised in the writ petition is redressed and no longer survive. Hence, the writ petition stands disposed of. [SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.] 3/3