Shivaji Education Society, Amravati Through Its Secretary, Amravati And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra Deptt. Of Technical Education Through Its Secty., Mumbai And 3 Others
cao880-15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 880 OF 2015 AND M.C.A. St. No. 7347 of 2015 in WRIT PETITION No. 1097 OF 2014 (D).
Shivaji Education Society, Amravati, through Secretary and another. -Vrs.- The State of Mah. Deptt. Of Technical Edu. Through Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others.
_______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. P.B. Patil, counsel for applicants.
Mrs. K. Deshpande, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. H.A. Deshpande, counsel for respondent no.4. Mr. P.S. Girdekar, counsel for intervener.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATED : 1 st OCTOBER, 2015 This court has issued notice on both applications on 6.5.2015.
Accordingly, today we have heard advocate Patil for applicants, advocate H.A. Deshpande for respondent no. 4 i.e. original petitioner, learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and advocate Girdekar for intervenor who had filed Civil Application No. 1520/2015.
Shir Patil, appearing for review applicants (employer of respondent in writ petition) states that inadvertently, on 9.3.2015 when writ petition No. 1097/2014 was decided, correct factual position could not be pointed out to this court. According to him, the recruitment initiated by advertisement dated 12.2.2014 was complete and only
cao880-15.odt appointment orders could not be issued to selected candidate i.e. proposed intervener (applicant) in the Civil Application No. 1520/2015.
Advocate Deshpande who appears for original petitioner and respondent no.4 in review proceedings does not dispute this fact. He points out that he got knowledge thereof only after adjudication of writ petition and accordingly challenge to selection process is pending before this court at the instance of petitioner in W.P. No.1097/2014 in fresh writ petition i.e. W.P. No. 5239/2015.
In this situation we find that what has been pointed out by original employer does not in any way contradict the findings of this court in its order dated 9.3.2015. This court had then directed the respondent no. 4 to make representation and had called upon the management to take suitable decision. Accordingly the representation was made by said petitioner Ramkumar and it has been decided.
We therefore find the prayer for intervention is also misconceived.
Shir Patil submits that the only effort is to correct the error which has crept in order of this court dated 9.3.2015. As the error has not materially affected adjudication, we do not find it necessary to alter the said order. Accordingly, all applications are disposed of. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE Hirekhan