caw1952.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLN. (W) NO.1952/2011 IN WRIT PETN. NO.2769/2009 (D) Deepak Chandrakant Bokde -vs- Joint Commissioner & Vice-Chairman and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri S.R. Narnaware, counsel for the applicant. Shri Pathan, counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. None for the respondent No.3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 16.09.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. None appears for the respondent No.3, though served. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the order passed in Writ Petition No.4400/2010, it appears that the issue involved in that writ petition and the present writ petition was identical and the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee was quashed in both the writ petitions and the matter was remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste claim of the petitioners in both the writ petitions. caw1952.11.odt 2/2 Since by an order dated 19th July, 2011, this Court had in Writ Petition No.4400/2010 quashed and set aside the termination order of the petitioner therein, in view of the quashing and setting aside of the order of the Scrutiny Committee, it would be necessary to pass a similar order in this case. Hence, the judgment dated 18th July, 2011 is modified. At the end of para 4 of the judgment dated 18th July, 2011, the following words may be added. “In the present facts, since the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 Committee on 24/04/2009 is set aside, the consequential order of termination of the petitioner is also set aside. The respondent No.3 should reinstate the petitioner in the service.” The civil application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE KHUNTE