1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9338 OF 2009 Shri Tarak K. Patil ...Petitioner. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9240 OF 2009 Kiran P. Sananse ...Petitioner v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9494 OF 2009 Smt. Abilasha D. Dalvi ...Petitioner v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar, adv. For the Petitioners. Mr.V.S.Masurkar, AGP For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 17th November , 2009 P.C. 1 In view of the order passed, notice to the respondent no.3 is dispensed with and notice to the respondent nos.1 and 2 is waived. 2 Rule. Heard forthwith. 2 3 The learned counsel points out that this Court in respect of similar issues in respect of same management on 13.11.2009 has disposed off the Writ Petition No.9239 of 2009 with Writ Petition No. 9245 of 2009 with Writ Petition No.9246 of 2009. 4 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have refused to grant approval to the petitioners appointment on the ground that there is backlog. For the reasons recorded while disposing off the petitions referred to above, we direct respondent no.2 to consider proposal forwarded by the management and dispose off in accordance with law irrespective of backlog. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)