1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5015 OF 2006 KIRAN SHIVAJI KASHID & ORS. .. PETITIONERS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS... RESPONDENTS Mr. Himanshu V. Kode for petitioners Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP Mr. Sukanta Karmala i/b Mr. Uday S. Dhanawade for R-3. CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & SMT. R. S. DALVI,JJ. DATE: 7/3/2008 P.C. . The case of the petitioners is that respondent 1 had forwarded requisition to respondent 2 requesting them to select suitable candidates for the post of Bahu Uddeshiya Aarogya Karmchari and prepare waiting list. In response to the said request, respondent 2 published an advertisement dated 24/7/97. The petitioner had applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 24/7/97. According to the petitioners written exams were conducted by issuing call letters to them on 20/2/2000. 2 2. Since the results were not declared the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 5051 of 2001 dated 13/6/02. A direction was issued by this court that respondent 1 i.e. the State of Maharashtra shall declare the results as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two months from that date. The petitioners withdrew the said petition. 3. The case of the petitioners is that this direction is not complied with. They have therefore, filed the present petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 inter alia to declare the result as directed by this court. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and, we have also heard learned counsel for the respondents. 5. We have perused the affidavit of Shri Kuashbhau S. Shingare, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri. From the affidavit and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel it is clear that by order dated 11/6/99 the Konkan Region Secondary Service Selection Board ("Selection 3 Board" for short) was abolished. The responsibility of the Selection Board was conferred on Special Officer, Commissioner, Konkan Division. Then the Special Officer, Commissioner, Konkan Division held the exams on 28/2/2000. 6. It appears that the Government stopped the process of filling the vacancies by Selection Board and directed to maintain status quo vide order dated 25/2/2000, which is annexed at Exhibit-C. 7. Thereafter by order dated 6/8/03 General Administration Department (GAD) quashed the entire process of Selection Board. Unfortunately the fact that the Government had stopped the process of filling the vacancies by Selection Board and had directed maintenance of status quo on 25/2/2000, was not pointed out to this court on 13/6/2002 when this court directed declaration of results. 8. Since the entire process is quashed there is no question of declaring the results. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that a direction be given to the respondents that the list which is not exhausted be exhausted and 4 also the case of the petitioners may be considered on merits. 10. The petitioners may make appropriate application to the appropriate authority in that behalf and if such an application is made, the appropriate authority may take decision on it in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on this aspect. Decision be taken independently. 11. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE