1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1872 OF 2001 WRIT PETITION NO. 1872 OF 2001 WRIT PETITION NO. 1872 OF 2001 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s. Anis Ahmed Jamdar .. Respondent Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for State. Mr.Anand Patil for Respondent. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 12TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 12TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 12TH JUNE, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . The Tribunal passed the following order : "Heard Shri Bandiwadekar, Ld. Advocate for the petitioner and Smt. Gore, Ld. P.O. for the state. Petitioner was an ad-hoc employee under the respondent no.2 at Pune and was sought to be transferred to Gadhinglaj, Dist.Kolhapur. This transfer is challenged herein. We have already held O.A.297/2000 decided on 1.12.2000 that the 2 transfer of ad hoc employee is uncompatible with the very nature and purpose of ad-hoc appointment. Hence the impugned order, qua the petitioner, stands quashed. During the pendency of the O.A. the Petitioner’s services have been regularised with effect from 9.3.1999. Hence, there is no bar now to respondent no.2 to giving the petitioner a suitable posting. We direct him to do forthwith. Other questions, if any, are left open. With these directions, O.A. stands disposed off. No costs." 2. While disposing of the Original Application, the Tribunal arrived at certain conclusions. The State is aggrieved of finding in the order that the services of Petitioner has been regularised. There was no material before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion to support their services of Petitioner been regularized. The learned AGP submits that the Government order was issued on 9th March 1999 ordering regularising the services of 237 employees and the Respondents was not one of them. The Tribunal has merely stated that the Petitioners services have been regularized from 9th March, 1999 without referring to any order. 3 3. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order impugned and remand the matter back to the Tribunal with a direction to hear and decide the matter a fresh uninfluenced of any observations made earlier by the Tribunal or by this Court. 4. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)