1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2225 OF 2009 Dodhu S/o Jajabrao Khairnar } Age : 40 Years, Occ. Nil, } R/o : 25/A, Dhyandit Society } Dhule Road, Nandurbar, } Dist. : Nandurbar. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through the Department of Water } Resource, Mantralaya, Mumbai- 32. } 2. The Controlling Officer and } Executive Engineer, Ghatghar Water } Electricity Project Circle, } R/o : Bhavani Nagar, Nashik , } Tq. & Dist. : Nashik. } 3. The Controller Executive Engineer } and Chairman Nashik Irrigation } Department, Dhule Division, Dhule. } District : Dhule. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.J.Ghute Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. M.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no. 3. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3382 OF 2009 2 Kishor S/o Ramdas Koli } Age : 34 Years, Occ. Nil, } R/o : 24, Ganesh Colony, } Dist. : Jalgaon. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through Principal Secretary, } Irrigation, Mantralaya, Mumbai. } 2. Chief Engineer } Jalsampada (Water Resources) } North Maharashtra Region, } Nashik. } 3. Superintending Engineer } Ghatghar Jalvidyut Corporation, } Nashik. } 3. Administrator } Command Area Development, } Jalgaon. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G.Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3637 OF 2009 1. Suresh Raghunath Sandhane } Age : 34 Years, Occ. Nil, } R/o : Janakinagar, Tukaram Wadi, } Niri Naka, Jalgaon. } 3 2. Yogesh S/o Yuvraj Jadhav } Age : 27 Years, Occ. Nil, } R/o : Nimgaon, Tq. Malegaon, } Dist. Nashik, presently residing at } 24, Ganesh Colony, Jalgaon. } .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through Principal Secretary, } Irrigation, Mantralaya, Mumbai. } 2. Chief Engineer } Jalsampada (Water Resources) } North Maharashtra Region, } Nashik. } 3. Superintending Engineer } Ghatghar Jalvidyut Corporation, } Nashik. } 4. Administrator } Command Area Development, } Jalgaon. } 5. Administrator } Command Area Development, } Dhule. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G.Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. M.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no. 5. 4 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 03/05/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER – P.V.HARDAS J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. Since all the 3 petitions pray for similar relief and as the facts are identical, these three petitions are being decided by this common Judgment. 3. In all the three petitions, the petitioners pray for issuance of writ directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners to the various posts, for which they had applied pursuant to their selection. As all the facts as are necessary for the decision of this advertisement, may briefly be stated thus : On 21/4/2008, an advertisement came to be issued inviting applications for various posts.. The written examination came to be conducted on 25/5/2008 and pursuant to the results of the written examination, oral interviews came to be held on 6/8/2008. The petitioners contend that the select list of candidates who have been duly selected,came to be published and though the names of the 5 petitioners were included in the select list, the petitioners have not been appointed. 4. It appears that after the holding of the interviews and before issuance of the appointment orders, the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court came to be rendered. In the Judgment rendered in Writ Petition NO. 7422 of 2007 Sunil Eknath Patil V/s State of Maharashtra and others dated 31/3/2008, the Division Bench directed that in case of project affected persons, no advertisement be issued and they were entitled to be appointed on the basis of the seniority list maintained by the respective revenue heads. On the basis of the said Judgment, the Govt. issued a resolution and, therefore, the appointments of the selected candidates pursuant to the said advertisement came to be differed. Mean while, the Full Bench which was constituted to hear the reference made by another Division Bench, answered the reference in the affirmative and held that the law laid down by the Division Bench in case of Sunil Eknath Patil ( supra ) was not the correct law and reversed the Judgment of the Division Bench. 5. We have heard the respective learned counsels for the petitioners and respondents. 6. The Full Bench in the said Judgment had held that merely because the candidates were project affected persons, that would not 6 permit them to seek appointment dehors the regular selection process and the project affected candidates were required to undergo selection process. In the present case, an advertisement had been issued and written examinations had been held and thereafter oral interviews had also been held. Thus, the selection process was complete and only the issuance of the appointment orders was deferred on account of the Judgment of the Division Bench. The aforesaid Judgment of the Division Bench has been reversed by the Full Bench and consequently, according to us, there is no impediment whatsoever in taking the selection process to its logical conclusion and issuing appointment orders to the candidates, who have been duly selected. If the respondents are permitted to issue fresh advertisement, many of the candidates, who had either applied or who may be selected in the selection process would become age barred and thus would not be entitled to get the appointment orders. The selection process is not vitiated in any manner as there is no flaw in the selection process. 7. In that light of the matter, therefore, we allow these petitions and direct the respondents to complete the selection process and issue appointment orders to those candidates, who have been duly selected in the said selection process, in accordance with their merits. This be done by the respondents within period of two months from today. 7 8. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms by granting liberty as prayed to the petitioners with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 2225,3382,3637....09 ( J )