1 1798.11 SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1798 OF 2011 Bhartiya Suraksha Rakshak & General Kamgar Union ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mrs.Ranjana Todankar for Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mrs.Lata Desai i/b Ms.Pallavi Divekar for Respondent No.2. Mr.K.M.Naik with Mr.S.P.Salkar for Respondent No.3. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED:- APRIL 13, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Counsel waive notice for respective respondents. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 2 1798.11 4. The limited grievance to be considered in this Petition is about the appropriateness of the communication dated 18th October, 2010 sent by the Secretary of the Pune District Security Guards Board, Pune to the petitioner union. The petitioner union had approached this Court on the earlier occasion by way of Writ Petition Nos.4163/2009 and 10896/2009 making grievance that although 22 and 8 applications respectively were made to the Board by the members of the Union on 18th April, 2009 (Exhibit E) and 22nd February, 2010 (Exhibit G), no decision was taken by the authorities thereon. In the light of the said grievance, this Court disposed of the Writ Petitions on 7th September, 2009 and 14th January, 2010 respectively by directing the Board to process the said applications in accordance with law after giving opportunity to all concerned. 5. The Counsel appearing for the Board submits that the said applications dated 18th April, 2009 and 22nd February, 2010, which were subject matter of Writ Petition Nos.4163/2009 and 10896/2009 were duly considered by the Board and the Board found in all 30 candidates eligible for being registered on the rolls of Security Guard Scheme. However, before doing so, prior approval of the State Government was essential, for which reason, the proposal was forwarded by the Board to the State 3 1798.11 Government. However, no communication has been received with regard to the said proposal from the concerned Authority of the State Government either by the Board or by the Union. In the meantime, however, the State Government has issued Government Resolution dated 25th August, 2010 in relation to the Security Guards Board Scheme. In the context of the said Resolution, the Board has now informed the Union that fresh application will have to be filed by the concerned candidates. 6. As aforesaid, the limited grievance in this Petition is about the appropriateness of the said communications dated 18th October, 2010 sent by the Board to the Union. We are in agreement with the submission of the petitioner that unless the State Government were to decide the applications filed by the Union dated 18th April, 2009 and 22nd February, 2010 which were subject matter of Writ Petition Nos.4163/2009 and 10896/2009 one way or the other consequent to the recommendation made by the Board, the question of the same candidates being called upon to apply afresh in view of the Government Resolution dated 25th August, 2010, does not arise. Inasmuch as, the said Government Resolution is in subsequent point of time and cannot be the basis to consider the claim of the candidates accrued to them earlier. 4 1798.11 7. Whereas, if the Government were to approve the recommendation made by the Board on the application dated 18th April, 2009, which was subject matter of Writ Petition No.4163/2009, the concerned candidates would find place in the Register of Security Guards Scheme at the appropriate place. It is only if the said proposal were to be rejected by the Government, those candidates would be required to apply afresh pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 25th August, 2010. Considered thus, we are of the opinion that the Petition can be disposed of with direction to the appropriate Authority of the State Government to decide the proposal submitted by the Board in connection with the applications dated 18th April 2009 and 22nd February, 2010 made by the Union which was subject matter of Writ Petition No.4163/2009 and 10896/2009 expeditiously one way or the other without reference to the Government Resolution dated 25th August, 2010. 8. Depending on the outcome of the said decision of the Government, further steps will have to be taken by the Board. If the decision is adverse to the petitioner, who are espousing the cause of the candidates already recommended by the Board, would be free to challenge the said decision of 5 1798.11 the Government, which challenge will be considered in on its own merits. It will also be open to the concerned candidate to avail of the offer available under the Government Resolution dated 25th August, 2010 and if such application is filed by the said candidate, will have to be considered on its own merits. 9. We direct the appropriate Authority of the State Government to take decision on the proposal submitted by the Board dated 11th November, 2009 and dated 22nd February, 2010 at Exhibit F and Exhibit G respectively to this Petition at pages 29 and 32 within eight weeks from today. If some decision has already been taken by the State Government, the same be communicated to the Board as well as the Union, as the case may be, forthwith. In the event, no decision has been taken, the same be taken within eight weeks from today and communicate to the Board as well as Union within the same time. 10. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)