:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2807 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 2807 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 2807 OF 2009 Neeta Dattatraya Joshi ..Petitioner versus The District Civil Surgeon Civil Hospital, Ratnagiri & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Y. M. Pendse for the Petitioner. Mr. A. P. Vanarse, AGP, for the Respondents. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 30TH MARCH, 2009 DATE : 30TH MARCH, 2009 DATE : 30TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Order of the learned Industrial Court, Kolhapur, dated 12.2.2009 declining to grant the status of a permanent employee to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Industrial Court has completely misconstrued the fact that the petitioner’s services were already regularised :2: w.e.f. 2.8.1996 under orders of the Administrative Officer, District Hospital, Ratnagiri (vide page 35 of the paper book). The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi [2006 (II) CLR 261] [2006 (II) CLR 261] [2006 (II) CLR 261] (paragraph 53) in order to point out that cases of regularisation such as the petitioner’s case need not be reopened on the basis of the Judgment in the case of Umadevi. It appears from the finding of the learned Industrial Court that this aspect has not been considered by the court and since it goes to the root of the matter, it requires consideration. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded back to the Industrial Court. 4. The learned AGP submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief because the petitioner’s services in the first instance were not in accordance with procedure i.e. no permission of the Regional and District Selection Board was obtained. It however appears from the record of the case that it has not been established by the respondents that such a procedure was existing and was not followed. In the circumstances, I am of view that the respondents shall be at liberty to :3: establish whether such a procedure existed and was followed or not since the matter is being remanded. In the circumstances, in the interest of justice the impugned order is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Industrial Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The parties will be at liberty to amend their pleadings and lead such evidence as may be advised in accordance with law. The Industrial Court shall decide the matter within a period of twelve months from the date the parties first appear before it. Parties are directed to appear before it on 13.4.2009. 5. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)