1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2984 of 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 732 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2984 of 2008 The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Petitioner Vs. Mr. Ganesh Jankiram Tayade & ors. ....Respondents Mr. V.S. Deokar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar-GP for respondent no.1. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ DATED:- April 20, 2010. P.C. This Petition takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 2nd November, 2007 as a result of which the Petitioners were directed to replace Respondent No. 3 herein (original Respondent No.5) from the post of Director of Libraries who was working in that capacity on deputation and to appoint some other suitable person. Learned Incharge Government Pleader has invited our attention to the order passed by the Dy. Secretary-Higher and Technical Education, Government of Maharashtra dated 9th April, 2010. The order dated 9th April, 2010 is tendered, taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. The said order clearly provides that services of Respondent No. 3 on deputation will not be extended further and has been repatriated to his parent department. In the circumstances, the direction given by the Tribunal in the impugned decision is 2 worked out. The fact that on account of such repatriation, the post of Director of Libraries has become vacant and available for appointment is of no consequences to dispose of the controversy on hand. 2. For, the Petitioner will have to take steps to fill in the said vacancy in accordance with law, if so advised. Suffice it to observe that nothing survives for consideration in the present Writ Petition. The same is, therefore, disposed of. 3. In so far as Civil Application No. 732/2010 is concerned, it is filed by the Respondent No.1-original Applicant before the Tribunal, praying for direction to appoint Petitioner on vacant post of Director. This relief cannot be granted to the Petitioner in the Civil Application. As a matter of fact this very relief was claimed by the Petitioner before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal has only partly allowed the original Application by directing the Petitioner-State to appoint suitable person on the said post. In the circumstances, even this Application will have to be disposed of. 4. We make it clear that if the Respondent No.1-original Applicant is eligible for being considered to be appointed on the post of Director, and the State decides to fill in that vacancy, may consider his claim on its own merits in accordance with law. 5. Counsel for the Respondent No.1-original Applicant now submits that he may be given liberty to challenge the order dated 9th April, 2010. We express no opinion as to whether such remedy is available to the Respondent No. 1- original Applicant or otherwise. If the Respondent No.1-original Applicant resorts to any such proceedings, the same will have to be decided on its own 3 merits 6. Accordingly, Petition as well as Civil Application disposed of on the above basis. (R.M. SAVANT, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)