1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4820 OF 2008 The Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad ...Petitioner Versus Vishnu s/o Dattu Phulare ...Respondent ..... Ms. Pradnya B, Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.B. Jadhav, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 17TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This petition takes exception to the order dated 13.9.2007 passed by the learned Industrial Court in complaint (ULP) No. 54 of 2000. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to the grounds taken in the petition and submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer in the petition and has submitted that petition is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. 2 4 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. I have also perused the contents of the petition and annexures thereof. The impugned order is at page 34 of the compilation. The said order reads as under:- 1) The complaint is allowed in part. 2) The respondent is directed to consider the case of the complainant for appointment to class VI post in accordance with Government Circular dated 17.2.2005 whenever vacancies for Class IV are to be filled in. 3) No order as to costs. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the date of Government Circular is 6.7.2005 and not 17.2.2005, and therefore, it may be corrected accordingly. On perusal of the order passed by the Industrial Court, it clearly appears that the respondent employee’s case is to be considered for class IV vacancy when such vacancy is to be filled, keeping in mind the Government Circular dated 6.7.2005. I do not think that the impugned order affects the petitioner employer in any manner. It is nothing but a simplicitor direction that whenever the vacancy would arise for class IV employees, the case of the respondent-employee be 3 considered as per the Government Circular. Even otherwise also, if somebody applies for any post, his claim is to be considered in accordance with the guidelines and Government Resolutions. I do not find any reason to interfere in the order dated 13.9.2007. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated. (S.S. SHINDE, J). rlj/