FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5286 OF 2011 "Jalindar Rawan Awate Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. S.B. Bhosale, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. G.R. Ingole Patil, AGP for respondent No.1 Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4. CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 17TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] The facts in the present case are identical with the facts in a bunch of petitions being W.P. No. 5501/2008 and W.P. No. 5554 of 2008 decided on 28/11/2008. The only reason given in the affidavit in reply is that since the rejection of the claim of the petitioner is prior to the date on which the Division Bench delivered the judgment, the same would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. We do not find any force in the said contention. 2] The learned counsel for petitioner submits that merely because the claim of the petitioner has been rejected cannot come in the way of the petitioner in getting the benefit of the said judgment. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5286 OF 2011 "Jalindar Rawan Awate Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 3] The petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to appoint the petitioner on a post commensurate with his qualification, within a period of six weeks from today. [M.T. JOSHI,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-