1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 6329 OF 2007 *** 1. We have heard learned counsel Mrs. M. A. Deshpande who appears for the Petitioners, learned A.G.P. Mr. S.K. Kadam for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith, heard finally, by consent of the parties. 3. In group of identical writ petitions, affidavit in reply is filed by Respondent No. 2 Maharashtra Public Service Commission. It was filed in Writ Petition No.6175 of 2007 encompassing grievance of all such petitioners. This fact is fairly accepted by learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. She admits that name of petitioner No.3 Arvind S/o Bapusaheb Yegaonkar is recommended. In view of the affidavit in reply filed in Writ Petition No. 6175 of 2007, nothing further remains to be adjudicated upon in this writ petition. 4. Writ petition is partly allowed. 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Respondent No.2 shall take further necessary steps expeditiously in view of the affidavit in reply, so far as Respondent No.3 Arvidn Bapusaheb Yegaonkar is concerned. It is made clear that so far as Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, they are not recommended and their case, therefore, cannot be considered by Respondent No.2. 5. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No costs. 6. In view of final disposal of writ petition itself, nothing further remains in civil application No.12566 of 2008. Accordingly, civil application stands disposed of. [SHRIHARI P.DAVARE,J.] [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:13/10/2010. ans/6329