(1) WP 7549.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7549 OF 2011 Amit Kumar Pratapsing Bagul PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.H. Koralkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. K.D. Bade Patil, Advocate for the respondent no.2 ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court, with a grievance that though the petitioner has been duly selected for the post of Sub-Inspector, appointment order has not been issued to him on account of the non-submission of the validity certificate. 3. This Court in group of Writ Petitions bearing W.P. nos. 2136 of 2011 and connected Writ (2) WP 7549.11 Petitions, vide judgment dated 25.08.2011 has struck off clause no.7 in Government Resolution dated 5.11.2009. 4. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the Petition in the following terms:- (I) The respondent no.2-Committee is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within a period of six (6) months from today. (II) Respondent nos.1, 3 and 4 are directed to issue provisional appointment order in favour of the petitioner. The said order shall be subject to the verification of the claim of the petitioner. (III) The petitioner shall file an undertaking before this Court, that in the event his claim is invalidated, he shall claim no equities on account of the provisional appointment order given in his favour. (IV) In the event, the order passed by the respondent no.2-Committee is adverse to the interest (3) WP 7549.11 of the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of four (4) months from the receipt of communication thereof by the petitioner. 5. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Sd/- Sd/- [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] arp/