1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.240 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 84 OF 2005 Vishwas Anna Sawant ... Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy for Petitioner. Mr.C.U. Singh, Senior Counsel with Mrs. P.A. Purndhare for Respondents. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : AUGUST 04, 2006 DATE : AUGUST 04, 2006 DATE : AUGUST 04, 2006 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . On behalf of the Respondents, it is pointed out that similar relief was sought for in terms of Prayer Clause (b) in the Petition which has been admitted. On consideration of prayer clause it would indicate that what the Petitioner has prayed for is to appoint him during the pendency of the petition against the vacancies which he claims before the petition was filed. . The present motion by the Petitioner is that though there are vacancies he has not been considered. The Petitioner is presently holding the post of Deputy Chief Engineer. Though the relief in the present motion are not happily worded, the 2 relief prayed for in Prayer Clause (b) cannot be considered, we do not see any reason as to why if the during the pendency of this petition, if any vacancy arises, whether in open or reserved category and if the petitioner is eligible, why he should not be considered for selection against that vacancy based on the rules and regulations which are in force and we accordingly so direct. . with the above observations, motion stands disposed of. (MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. (MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. (MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, (F.I.REBELLO, (F.I.REBELLO, J.) J.) J.)