1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO. 6100 OF 2008 01. Sachin S/o Sahebrao Patil, Age : 30 Years, Occu. : Service (At present Nil), R/o Choudhari Nagar, Raver, Tal. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. 02. Shri Sandiplal Arunlal Jaiswal, Age : 24 Years, Occu. : Service (At present Nil), R/o Choudhari Nagar, Raver, Tal. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. 03. Durgeshsing Kamlakar Rajput, Age : 24 Years, Occu. : Service (At present Nil), R/o 24, Kashiram Nagar, Sahyadri Old Satara, Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. 04. Nilesh Jankiram Dhande, Age : 29 Years, Occu. : Service (At present Nil), R/o Chenawal, Tq. Raver, District Jalgaon. 05. Ranjana Nivrutti Patil, Age : 30 Years, Occu. : Service (At present Nil), R/o C/o Bhusawal Industrial Develop[ment Corporation, Quarter No. Super D-1/2, Deepnagar, Tal. Bhusawal, District Jalgaon. .. ..PETITIONERS versus 01. The State of Maharashtra 2 02. The District Collector, Jalgaon. 03. The District Selection Committee, Jalgaon, Through It's President, The Collector Jalgaon. .. ..RESPONDENTS Shri P. R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for petitioners. Shri N. B. Khandare, Government Pleader for Respondents. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 27th July 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ Per B. R. Gavai, J. ] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners are challenging the orders dated 30-7-2008 issued by respondent No.2 thereby terminating the services of the petitioners. 3. Undisputed facts giving rise to the present petition are as under _ The present petitioners were appointed as project affected persons on the post of Talathi and Clerk Typist after undergoing through regular selection process conducted by Respondent No.3. However, it appears that some persons approached this Court by 3 way of Writ Petition No. 7472 of 2007 contending therein that in so far as project affected persons are concerned, they were required to be appointed directly dehors the recruitment rules and merits. The Division Bench of this Court vide Order dated 31-3-2008 in Writ Petition No. 7472 of 2007 accepted the contentions raised on behalf of the said petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7472 of 2007. It was held that in so far as project affected persons are concerned, they were required to be appointed on the basis of seniority list of the project affected persons maintained by the respective Collectors. On the basis of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7472 of 2007, the services of the petitioners came to be terminated. 4. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed present petition. When the present petition was heard by the Division Bench of this Court, it doubted correctness of the view taken by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 7472 of 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Petition'). The matter was, therefore, directed to be referred to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the following issue :- " Whether projected affected persons can be appointed without advertising the posts, ignoring their qualifications and merit. " 4 As per the directions of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Larger Bench was constituted which has answered the issue vide Judgment dated 9-7-2009. The issue answered reads thus : " That, the project affected persons cannot be appointed without advertising the posts ignoring their qualifications and merit. " After the issue is answered by the Larger Bench, present matter is placed before us for disposal in accordance with the answer given by the Larger Bench. 5. Undoubtedly, the services of the petitioners were terminated in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil s/o. Eknath Patil alias Chaudhary vs. State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No. 7472 of 2007) dated 31-3-2008. The view taken in Sunil's case has not been approved by Larger Bench of this Court and it has been categorically held that the project affected persons cannot be appointed without advertising the posts ignoring their qualifications and merit. 6. In that view of the matter, the ground on which the petitioners' services were terminated does not exist. The present petitioners have been appointed after advertisement was published 5 by the District Selection Committee/ Collector, Jalgaon and they were found to be suitable in the selection process conducted by the respondent No.3 in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be allowed in view of the answer given by the Larger Bench. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A) of the petition. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/wp610005