1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7578 OF 2007 Bibhishan S/o Maruti Chawre .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri D. R. Kale, A.G.P. for the Respondents No. 1 and 2. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2010. ORAL ORDER [Per NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] : . Heard. 2. The petitioner approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal against a communication/show cause dated 15th January, 2007, as it was alleged that he did not pass departmental examination while holding the post of Block Development Officer. The petitioner filed reply to the said show 2 cause notice dated 01.02.2007. It is contended that Tribunal granted stay to the show cause notice during pendency of petition. By communication dated 23rd March, 2007 (Exhibit - H), Under Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, passed an order of withdrawing the order of termination of services of petitioner, in the light of interim order passed by the Tribunal. 3. By judgment and order dated 12.12.2007, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, mainly on the ground that the petitioner had approached the Tribunal against a show cause notice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is very likely that respondent/State would dismiss or terminate the services of petitioner on the same ground as now Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application. 5. An affidavit in reply is filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2. It is admitted fact that the petitioner appeared in a test conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission for selecting persons for the post of Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner. The petitioner was selected and was accordingly appointed. Admittedly, as on today the petitioner is working as 3 Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the cadre of Block Development Officer and Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner is different, but the continuation of service of Block Development Officer would be necessary for his service benefits. 7. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, we observe that in case the State decides to issue an order of dismissal/termination of the petitioner as Block Development Officer, then the State shall first issue a show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to file comprehensive reply to the show cause. The state thereafter would pass appropriate orders. If the order passed is adverse to the petitioner, it shall not take effect for four weeks from the date of service of order. We have not expressed any opinion on merits. All the issues are kept open. The writ petition is disposed of. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] bsb/April 10