1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5045/2007 (Sunil Motiram Hatolkar VERSUS State of Mah. & others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Sonbhadre, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Deopujari, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-1. Mr. A.B. Patil, counsel for R-3. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 31, 2008. Heard Mr. S.Z. Sonbhadre, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.B. Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. The counsel for the petitioner states that in the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming benefit given by the Government Resolution dated 24.01.1990 to the candidates who were selected for appointment on a post of Gram Sevak prior to 09.02.1988 by various committees which were then existed. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that the identical issue was involved in Writ Petition No.496/2007. The petitioners in the said petition also claimed that 2 the respondent should be directed to issue order of appointment in view of the Government Resolution dated 24.01.1990. It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner was accepted and the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.06.2007 disposed of the Writ Petition No. 496/2007 by observing thus----- “We therefore, find that Petitioner is entitled for the relief as sought for. We direct the Respondents to issue appointment to the petitioner as and when the post is available within 15 days therefrom. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (II) with above directions.” The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that similar directions may be given to the respondent no.3. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the directions issued in the said judgment, the petitioner also would be entitled to get order of appointment as and when the post is available and as per seniority 3 of the petitioner in the waiting list dated 11.10.1986. Mr. A.B. Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3, does not dispute the factual and legal aspect of the matter and has also submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of this Court referred hereinabove. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is not necessary for us to deliberate on the issue involved in the present writ petition, and therefore, we dispose of the present writ petition in view of the judgment of this Court dated 29.06.2007 as well as statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.3. JUDGE JUDGE APTE