3011wp2859.09.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2859 of 2009 (Sk. Rehman Sk. Umdu .vs. State and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D.D.Sinha and F. M. Reis, JJ. Date : 30/11/2009. Heard Mr. Mohd. Ateeque, Adv. for petitioner, Mr.D.B.Patel, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr.V.R.Choudhari, Adv. for respondent nos. 6 and 7. Civil Application No. 2581 of 2009 Heard the learned counsel for respective parties. Civil Application No. 2581 of 2009 is moved by petitioner seeking permission to amend the petition. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that, during pendency of the petition, services of petitioner came to be terminated and therefore, by the proposed amendment, the petitioner is proposing to challenge the order of termination and therefore, has filed present application seeking permission accordingly. In the circumstances, the Civil Application is allowed. Appropriate amendment be carried out forthwith. 3011wp2859.09.odt 2 . Heard the learned counsel for respective counsel. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel on the merits of the matter. Following facts are not in dispute : That the petitioner was not selected for the post of Assistant Teacher by the competent Selection Committee comprising of Collector, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, District Welfare Officer, District Tribal Development Officer, District Planning Officer and Chief Officer, Municipal Council. Since the selection of petitioner and others was not by the competent Selection Committee, which was noticed at a latter point of time, therefore, respondent no.6 cancelled the selection process and terminated services of those who were not selected by the validly constituted Selection Committee and by following proper selection process. The above referred facts are not in dispute and therefore, we cannot find fault with the action of termination of petitioner. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that others those who were selected along with the petitioner were given different treatment and therefore, appropriate observations in this regard be made. We want to make it clear that the treatment which is given to the 3011wp2859.09.odt 3 . petitioner should be identical to one given to others. With this direction, the petition is disposed of. Civil Application Nos.2119 of 2009 as well as 2580 of 2009, in view of fact that the petition is disposed of, do not survive. Hence, both the applications are also disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE jais