1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.362/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3242 OF 2007 (Avinash s/o Wasudeorao Tekade and others vs. Zilla Parishad, Amravati) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri B.M. Khan, Advocate for applicants. Shri M. Sable, Advocate for respondent. -------- CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND P.B.VARALE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 12, 2010 Shri Khan, learned Counsel for applicants/petitioners, on instructions, prays for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to the applicants to approach the appropriate Authority for redressal of their grievance. He submits that about 14 persons, who were similarly placed, had filed appeals before the Additional Commissioner and their appeals were allowed vide order dated 5/9/2008 by making the following observations : “It is seen that no higher qualification is laid 2 down in the said recruitment rules, but it is also seen that advertisement issued by Zilla Parishad is different in a way in which a minimum qualification is laid down but it is also mentioned that candidate having higher qualification should not apply. Now the basic question is whether Zilla Parishad is empowered to frame its own recruitment rules ? A definite answer can be given to their question is i.e. Zilla Parishad are governed by rules and orders framed by Rural Development Department and hence, the conditions laid down in advertisement were unwarranted and for which Zilla Parishad is not empowered to do so.” Shri Khan further submits that there is absolutely no difference between the case of the petitioners and the case of those 14 persons, who had filed appeals before the Additional Commissioner. He submits that when the writ petition was filed and argued before earlier Bench, the order dated 5/9/2008 passed in the group of appeals filed by those 14 persons was not placed on record since the petitioners were not aware about it. The submissions of Shri Khan have not been disputed by learned Counsel for the respondent. 3 Shri Sable, learned Counsel for the respondent, submits that he has no objection for allowing the petitioners to withdraw the writ petition itself. In the circumstances, we pass the following order : Writ Petition No.3242/2007 is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to file/ make representation before the appropriate Authority for appropriate relief. If petitioners make such representation, it shall be considered and decided on merits in accordance with law. While passing this order, we shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case. In view of this order, the order dated 7/10/2008 passed in Writ Petition No.3242/2007 renders ineffective. In view of the withdrawal of the writ petition, the miscellaneous civil application is also disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj 4