1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5597/2004 WITH WRIT PETITION NO: 821/2009 (Vinod Meshram vs. Mah. Animal & Fisheries Science University and others ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... CORAM: D.D.SINHA & A. P. BHANGALE , JJ. DATED: 22nd April, 2009. *** 1. Heard Mr J T Gilda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr A R Patil, for respondent no.1 and 3. 2. Mr Gilda seeks oral permission to implead Collector, Bhadara, as party-respondent since he is a necessary party. Permission being of a formal nature, granted. Appropriate amendment in the cause title be carried out forthwith. 3. Issue notice to the added respondent. Mrs. S.S.Wandile, learned AGP waives notice on behalf of Collector, Bhandara. 3. Mr Gilda, learned counsel states that the issue about grant of appointment from the 2 category of Project-affected person is concluded by the decision of this Court reported in 2008(5) Mh.L.J. 436 in the matter of Sunil Eknath Patil alias Chaudhary vs. State of Maharashtra. It is contended that the petitioner is a Project-affected person whose land was acquired, way back in the year 1999 and, therefore, the petitioner has applied for appointment from Project-affected persons category to Respondent No.1. However till this date, the claim of the petitioner has not been considered and, therefore, the instant petition for necessary direction. 4. Mr Patil, learned counsel states that the petitioner has not applied from the category of Project-affected person. However, by virtue of the order passed by this Court dated 17th February 2005, the concerned respondent was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner from the said category, on its own merit. Mr Patil states that as per the procedure applicable, the candidate from project-affected persons category is required to be considered on the basis of the seniority list maintained by the Collector in this regard. It is submitted that appropriate information from Collector, Bhandara, will be obtained and if the claim of the petitioner as per the seniority list is 3 matured, in that case, appropriate steps in accordance with law will be taken at the earliest. Mrs. Wandile, learned AGP states that appropriate information about the placement of the petitioner in the seniority list shall be provided to respondent no.1. 5. In the backdrop of the above-referred facts and particularly in view of the statements made by Shri Patil as well as Mrs Wandile, no further direction as such is necessary. Therefore, petition is disposed of accordingly. However, we expect the respondent to complete the process at the earliest within three months from the date of communication of this order. 5. With the above observation and direction Writ Petition No.5597/2004 is disposed of. 6. In view of the order passed in main petition, Civil application No.821/2009 does not survive. The same is also disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE sahare