1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1863/2010 ( Sujit S. Challawar & others -: VERSUS :- Govt. of Maharashtra and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 16 th AUGUST 2010. Heard Adv. Shri Paliwal for petitioners, Shri Kakde learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and Adv. Shri Ghare for respondent nos.2, 3 and 4. Contentions of Adv. Shri Paliwal is recruitment of petitioners' is in accordance with law and they are working even today. He states that their recruitment was sought to be challenged by respondent nos.2 and 3 but the Divisional Joint Registrar had declined to interfere in the matter and the Hon'ble Minister has behind their back and without issuing notice to the petitioners found fault in the recruitment process. He contends that the order of Hon'ble Minister dated 13/3/2010 is therefore unsustainable and the same needs to be quashed and set aside. He further argues that petitioners are already confirmed in service and have become permanent employee of respondent no.4 – A.P.M.C. Adv. Shri Ghare for respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 states that 2 there was no meeting approving the appointments made and the appointments are without following mandatory procedure prescribed by Rule 100 (5) of A.P.M.C. Rules. His argument is Hon'ble Minister has rightly considered the controversy. Learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 is also supporting the order of the Hon'ble Minster. Shri Ghare also states that Administrator was appointed after the alleged recruitment of petitioners and in fresh elections held the group which recruited petitioners has lost. He further states that respondent no.4 A.P.M.C. wants to proceed against the petitioners in the matter and order of status-quo granted by this Court on 20th of April 2010 does not permit A.P.M.C. to do so. In reply, Adv. Shri Paliwal states that there is no question of A.P.M.C. taking any action against the petitioners and the petitioners are not concerned with internal politics. After hearing the parties, I do not find it necessary to go into this controversy at this stage. The order of Hon'ble Minister is passed in revision is without giving any opportunity of hearing to petitioners. Admittedly, on said day petitioners were working with A.P.M.C. hence they could not have been terminated and process of recruitment could not have held faulty behind their back. In view of this position this Court has on 20th of April 2010 ordered status-quo as on that day in relation to service of petitioners. This Court did not prohibit A.P.M.C. from taking appropriate action in accordance with law. As in fact the petitioners were not heard and it is not in dispute, the order of interim stay granted by Hon'ble Minister 3 on 31st of March 2010 is hereby set aside. The Hon'ble Minister shall hear the petitioners and also applicants before him and A.P.M.C. and thereafter pass further appropriate orders in the matter. It is made clear that respondent no.4 A.P.M.C. is free to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and order of status-quo granted by this Court does not prohibit it from doing so. The petitioners shall appear before the Hon'ble Minister on 7th of September 2010 and shall abide by instructions of his office in the matter. It is made clear that if the Hon'ble Minister finds that petitioners are not co-operating with his office for expeditious disposal in the matter, the Hon'ble Minister is free to pass appropriate interim orders in the matter. Writ petition is thus partly allowed. No costs. JUDGE Tambaskar.