1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.406 of 2008 (Syed Muzzafar Ali Syed Majeed .vs. State & Ors.) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : D.D.Sinha and Mrs. Vasanti A. Naik, JJ. DATE : February 01, 2008. Heard Mr.N.P.Dhote, Adv. for the Petitioner and Mr.A.B.Patil, Adv. for the Respondent No.3. The Counsel for the petitioner states that, in the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming benefit given by the Government Resolution dt. 24.01.1990 to the candidates who were selected for appointment on the posts of Gram Sevaks prior to 9.2.1988 by various Committees which then existed. The Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the identical issue was involved in the Writ Petition No.496 of 2007. The petitioner in the said petition also claimed that the respondent should be directed to issue order of appointment in view of the Government Resolution dt.24.1.1990. It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner was accepted and the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dt. 29.6.2007 disposed of the Writ Petition No.496 of 2007 by observing thus : “ We therefore, find that Petitioner is entitled for the 2 relief as sought for. We direct the Respondents to issue appointment to the petitioner as and when the post is available within 15 days therefrom. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (II) with above directions. “ The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that similar directions may be given to the respondent no.3. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, as per the directions issued in the said judgment, the petitioner also would be entitled to get order of appointment as and when the post is available and as per seniority of the petitioner in the waiting list dt. 11.10.1986. Mr. A.B.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 does not dispute the factual and legal aspect of the matter and has also submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of this Court referred to hereinabove. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is not necessary for us to deliberate on the issue involved in the present Writ Petition, and therefore, we dispose of the present Writ Petition in view of the judgment of this Court dt.29.6.2007 as well as the statement made by the counsel for the respondent no.3. JUDGE JUDGE ssj