1 601.11 SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.601 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4401 OF 2010 Shri.Dattatraya Pandurang Karande ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents And Shri.Gopaleshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandals ...Applicant ...... Mr.S.A.Ghaisas for Applicant/Intervenor. Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for Petitioner. Mrs.Molina Thakur, A.G.P. for Respondents 1 to 3. Mr.A.M.Joshi for Respondent No.5. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED:- APRIL 20, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Two reliefs have been claimed in this Application. The first relief is that the applicant be added as party respondent in the Writ Petition. Insofar as this relief is concerned, Counsel for the petitioner has no objection to accede to this request. Accordingly, Application is made absolute in terms 2 601.11 of prayer clause (b) by consent. Amendment be carried out within one week from today. 3. The second relief claimed in the Application is to vacate the interim relief granted by this Court on 30th September, 2010. The argument of the applicant is that the applicant was not heard before passing of the said order. However, it is indisputable that the order dated 30th September, 2010 came to be passed after hearing the petitioner as well as the respondent including the private respondent. The effect of interim order granted in terms of prayer clauses (d) and (e) is that the order passed in favour of the respondent No.5 by the Deputy Director has been stayed. The Management cannot improve upon the said position. The Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5/private respondent submits that the said order has been passed without considering the fact that the Management was a necessary party to the Petition and the Management had discretion to appoint the respondent No.5 on the concerned post. This argument was available to the respondent No.5 which could have been canvassed earlier. We are informed that this contention was specifically raised by the respondent No.5 before the Coordinate Bench. 3 601.11 4. Be that as it may, we find no reason to vacate the interim order dated 30th September, 2010 at the instance of the applicant Management. The applicant Management cannot take sides in the matter and ought to abide by the outcome of the Petition which has been already admitted. 5. Accordingly, Application is disposed of on the above terms. The applicant who has been added as respondent in the Writ Petition waives notice of rule in the Writ Petition. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)