[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1180 OF 2005 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1180 OF 2005 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1180 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2114 OF 2004 Executive Engineer, M.S.E.B., Dist: Solapur. .... Applicant Vs. Arun Narayan Bhanage .... Respondent WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1181 OF 2005 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1181 OF 2005 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1181 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2253 OF 2004 Executive Engineer, M.S.E.B., Dist: Solapur. .... Applicant Vs. Subhash G. Karande .... Respondent AND AND AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1182 OF 2005 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1182 OF 2005 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1182 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2311 OF 2004 Executive Engineer, M.S.E.B., Dist: Solapur. .... Applicant Vs. Sadhu Yeshwant More .... Respondent Ms A.R.X. Baxi for the Applicant in all the above Applications. Ms Anjali S. Ranade for the Respondent in CA-No.1180/2005. Shri D.K. Ghaisas for the Respondent in CA-Nos.1181 and 1182 of 2004. [2] CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SRI R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: FEBRUARY 28, 2008 P.C: P.C: P.C: It is brought to the notice of this Court that while passing the order dated 22-9-2004 in Writ Petition Nos.2114, 2311 and 2253 of 2004, it was wrongly recorded that "It is not in dispute that presently the respondent in Writ Petition Nos.2114 and 2311 of 2004 are already employed on permanent basis with the petitioner." In fact, the respondents in neither of the petitions have been employed with the petitioner. Obviously, therefore, the said recording was made on the basis of incorrect information. The order dated 22-9-2004 passed in Writ Petition Nos.2114, 2311 and 2253 of 2004 therefore should stand modified by deleting the said sentence quoted above. Order accordingly. The applications stand disposed of. (R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.) [3] sjs/F8cag1180.5 sjs/F8cag1180.5 sjs/F8cag1180.5