1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 684 OF 1993 WRIT PETITION NO. 684 OF 1993 WRIT PETITION NO. 684 OF 1993 Ramchandra P.Gupta & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Mandar Limaye for the Petitioners. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, Govt.Pleader for Respondent No.1. Mr.A.S.Rao with Mr.Indrajeet Kulkarni for Respondent No.2. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 10TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 10TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 10TH JUNE, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . The Petitioners were appointed by two different orders, one passed on 10th February, 1989 and another on 14th December, 1990. The orders read that they had been selected by the selection committee on temporary basis in the pay scale of 1200-2040. However, paragraph 5 of the order passed in favour of the Petitioner No.1 states that the said appointment is purely for a period of six months from the date of the order or till candidates from the Selection Board are 2 available, whichever is earlier. Therefore, the order was passed by the Respondent No.2 on 12th February, 1993 relieving the Petitioner No.1 as Primary Teacher with effect from 18th February, 1993. This order has been challenged in this writ Petition. This court granted interim relief and the Petitioners continued in service uninterrupted from the year 1990 and still continue in service. During the pendency of this Petition the Respondents have even confirmed the service of Petitioners although the Petitioners have given an undertaking that their confirmation will be subject to out come of the Writ Petition. 2. The Petitioners have joined service in 1990. They were removed from service in 1993. They approached this Court and this Court passed an order staying operation of the said order. The Respondents did not take any steps for the last 15 years to get the order of stay passed by this court vacated. On the other hand, they confirmed the services of the Petitioners, although there was no directions from this Court to the Respondents to confirm the services of the Petitioners. Therefore, it is futile to decide the question raised in this Petition at this point of time, since it would be unfair and harsh to terminate the 3 services of Petitioners after 18 years of service. 3. The order of termination is quashed. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The Petition is accordingly, allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.S.SHINDE,J.)