hcs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.9020 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Petitioner. Vs. Kum.Meenatai Ishwar Athawale & Ors. .. Respondent. Mr.A.P.Vanarshe A.G.P. for the Petitioner. Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.B. BHOSALE, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 04, 2009 P.C. This is unfortunate case whereby the State Government has come by way of this petition to challenge the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.86 of 2008. The present three respondents alongwith several others had filed Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal sometime in the year 2004 as their appointment as Agricultural Servant had been cancelled. The tribunal by the common order dated 14.2.2006 dismissed most of the applications except the three applications preferred by the respondents and directed that their case will be considered and to appoint them in the vacancies of categories of the Scheduled Castes. This order was challenged before this Court and the Supreme Court. The S.L.P. was rejected. Subsequent to that the respondents came to be appointed as Agricultural Servants. From the post of Agricultural Servants on completion of three years services on that post, the respondents are eligible for the post of Agricultural Assistants. As the petitioners failed to appoint them on the said post the respondents filed O.A.No.86 of 2008 which was allowed by order dated 5.3.2009 by the learned Tribunal. The contentions of the petitioners before the learned Tribunal was that initial appointment of the respondents was illegal as the posts which were advertised were for ex-servicemen. The tribunal rightly rejected the same on the ground that the issue has already been decided and the challenge was also rejected by this Court and the S.L.P. disposed by the Supreme Court. In our opinion the order of the tribunal does not suffer from an error of law on the face of record. The learned Tribunal held that once the issue of ex-servicemen was concluded in earlier petition and the Petitioner was to be considered against posts meant for the Scheduled Caste and the State Government did appoint them, the question of not being ex-servicemen would not arise. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case though it is a fit case to impose cost since plea is made on behalf of the State, no order as to cost. The Respondent through their counsel on instructions undertake to implement the order within four weeks from today. (D.B. BHOSALE,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)