1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 623/2010. Jagannath Harishchanda Raut and others -: versus :- Dr.Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidhyapeeth and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 23, 2010. Heard Shri K.A. Patil, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri A. Sambre, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Challenge is to refusal of interim order by Industrial Court in ULPA complaint Nos. 3,4, and 5 of 2010. 3 petitioners before this Court claim to be project affected person and point out that they were working on daily wages till 2004. In 2004 because of their status as project affected persons they have been appointed on vacancies on regular basis in pay scale. According to them, in such circumstances, act of respondent nos. 1 and 2 in issuing advertisement for recruitment even for those posts constitute unfair labour practice and therefore, respondent nos. 1 and 2 need to be restrained from conducting any selection process in so far as the posts occupied by the petitioners are concerned. Shri Sambre, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 4 state that terms and conditions of appointment order of 2 petitioners are very clear. They are not appointed in services of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and they have to clear the selection process in accordance with law before they are absorbed. It is contended that petitioners will be given due weightage as project affected person in the process of selection. I have perused the impugned order delivered by the Industrial Court and also the appointment order. The appointment order itself clearly stipulates that the appointment of petitioner in service is purely temporary and till the duly selected candidate becomes available. In this situation, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage as petitioners admittedly have now applied in response to the public advertisement and are ready to face the selection process. It is apparent that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall consider their entitlement and experience as also their status as project affected persons in accordance with the law and pass further appropriate orders in the matter. Petition is therefore disposed of with liberty to petitioners to challenge those orders and with clarification that submissions to process of selection by petitioners does not in any way prejudice their legal right. Liberty to petitioners to move Industrial Court for expeditious disposal of their ULPA Complaints if they are so advised, after result of selection process, and if such request is made the Industrial Court shall consider the same favourably. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.