1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3541/2007 (Nilesh Balwant Ukunde VERSUS The State of Mah. & others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Bhamburkar, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Jichkar, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-1. Mr. Samarth, counsel for the R-2. Mr. Bhangde, Sr. counsel for the R-3. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 12, 2008. Heard. In the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 12.03.2007 whereby the respondent no.2 Corporation has appointed respondent no.3 as a fire consultant. Mr. Bhamburkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the aforesaid appointment is bad in law on various grounds; one of them is that the respondent no.3 does not have requisite eligibility to be considered for appointment as a fire consultant. 2 Before we consider the issue on merit, Mr. Samarth, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 Corporation has brought to our notice that the respondent no.3 was appointed as a fire consultant vide order dated 12.03.2007 only for a period of one year and that one year shall be over on 11.03.2008. It is further contended that after the said period is over, the respondent no.2 Corporation shall assess the work done by the Consultant and after carrying out inspection, the Corporation shall invite applications for grant of appointment as fire consultant. Mr. Samarth, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 Corporation, states that this fact is also reflected in the submissions dated 23.10.2007 filed on behalf of respondent no.2. In the backdrop of the above referred fact, particularly since the period of one year is coming to an end, we do not propose to show any indulgence at this stage. However, after the period of appointment of one year of respondent no.3 is 3 over, the respondent no.2 Corporation shall undertake the procedure referred hereinabove for empanelment of fire consultants. It will be open for the petitioner to apply for the same. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE APTE