- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2332/2009 Manoj s/o Sawlaram Sarode, age 36 yrs., occu.nil, r/o Janta Colony, c/o Dr.Borge House, Nanded. Dist.Nanded. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation, Nanded. Through its Commissioner. ...Respondents... ..... Shri S.R. Palnitkar , Advocate for petitioner. Shri V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri M.V. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.2. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 10.08.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Hardas, J.) : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. - 2 - 2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3] By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing the respondent no.2 to implement the resolution dated 23.4.2007 passed by the Standing Committee and prays for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Garden Superintendent. 4] Such of the facts, which are necessary for the decision of this petition, may briefly be stated thus: The petitioner possesses the educational qualification of B.Sc. (Agri.) and M.Sc. (Botany) in Plant Pathology and has experience of working in the development of garden. The petitioner learnt about the vacancy of the post of Assistant Garden Superintendent in Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation, Nanded, and accordingly submitted his application on 20.4.2007. The Standing Committee of the respondent no.2 passed a resolution dated 23.4.2007 approving the name of the petitioner and one Shri A.R. Bharati for appointing them on the post of Assistant Garden Superintendent and Garden Consultant respectively. Despite passing of the said resolution, the petitioner was not in receipt of any appointment order and accordingly submitted representations to the respondents. Meanwhile, an advertisement came to be issued for filling the post on contract basis for development of garden in Nanded city. The petitioner was also interviewed on 13.7.2007. Meanwhile, one Bharati came to be appointed by appointment order dated 17.5.2007. The petitioner, however, despite having been interviewed and despite the resolution, which was passed by the Standing Committee, has not been appointed. - 3 - 5] Shri M.V. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent no.2, states on instructions from respondent no.2, that the claim of the petitioner is still under consideration and the same has not been rejected. The respondent no.2 would take decision in accordance with law in respect of the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the said post within three months from today. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court. 6] In the light of that statement, therefore, we allow this petition and make the Rule absolute in terms of the said statement with no order as to costs. (A.V. Potdar, J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/c108097