(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2669 OF 1994 Dhanraj s/o. Jagannathrao Varad, Aged : Major, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Lungare Galli, Kandhar, Taluka : Kandhar, Dist. : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra in the Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Bombay. 2. The Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, through its Chief Executive Officer, Parbhani, District : Parbhani. 3. The Regional Subordinate Service Selection Board, Aurangabad, through its Secretary, "Saphalya" building, Behind R.T.O. office, Padampura, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate (appointed as amicus curiae), for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. V.V. Bhavthankar, Advocate, for respondent no.2. Respondent no.3 served (Absent). ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 1ST JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondent no.2, to appoint him to the post of Assistant to Junior Engineer in Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. 2. This Court, vide order dated 23rd September 1998, while issuing rule, had granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause "C". Prayer clause "C" of the petition reads thus : " Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the respondent no.2 may please be directed by issuing interim (3) mandatory injunction order to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant to the Junior Engineer in Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, provisionally on temporary basis. " 3. Since interim relief in the nature of mandatory injunction, directing the respondent no.2 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant to Junior Engineer in Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, was granted, we had requested Mr. V.V. Bhavthankar, learned Counsel for respondent no.2, to seek instructions in the matter. Mr. Bhavthankar, learned Counsel, on instructions, states that the petitioner has not only been appointed, but has also been given subsequent promotion as a Junior Engineer. 4. It is, thus, clear that on account of the interim relief, the petitioner is in service for the last twelve years. As such, it can be seen that the grant of interim relief itself has served purpose of the petition. We, therefore, find that any adjudication, at this stage, would not only be unwarranted, but in the event, if we decide against the petitioner, it will also cause prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner has been in service for a period of twelve years only under the orders of this court. It is settled principle of law, that nobody should be prejudiced due to act of court. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to go (4) into merits of the matter since the purpose of the petition has been served by grant of interim relief. 5. The petition is, therefore, allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of the interim order. Parties shall bear their own costs. 6. Mr. S.S. Choudhari, learned Counsel, was appointed as amicus curiae, for the petitioner. He has rendered able assistance to the Court. His fees are quantified at Rs. 2,000/- [Rupees Two Thousand only]. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2669