1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2100 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2590 OF 2004. The Amravati University. -: VERSUS :- Shashikant Tulshiramji Tarale and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 22, 2010. Heard Shri S.G. Loney, learned counsel for applicant/petitioner, Shri V.M. Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 7 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.8. Matter is before this court because of orders dated 09.078.2010 passed in Contempt Petition No.25/2009. Shri Loney, learned counsel contends that use of words “etc.” in paragraph no.13 by this Court in its judgment dated 22.08.2006 has created some confusion and that needs clarification. He has attempted to show to this Court that no vacant post are available. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel has urged that by relying upon the words “etc” for the first time in clarification, effort is being made in present application to push into service the government resolution dated 2 05.09.2009 and also a policy decision about promotion of Class-IV employees dated 05.04.1991. According to him, learned Single Judge has in paragraph no.10 pointed out resolution of management council dated 22.09.1996 in the alternative and stand of University accepted, is reproduced in paragraph no.8 of that judgment. After hearing the respective counsel, I find that the alleged non availability of post or surplus candidates working on the post is not relevant for present purposes. The impugned judgment dated 22.08.2006 clearly shows that the stand of University was, as and when vacant post would become available, the services of employees can be regularized. The defence was service cannot directly ordered to be regularized. This stand is found to be fair and valid and additionally reference is also made to resolution of management council dated 22.09.1996. The word “etc.” therefore, cannot be construed to introduce a policy decision and standard code which were then not within the contemplation of parties. I do not find any case made out warranting clarification. Civil Application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE Rgd.