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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.565 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.565 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.565 OF 2006 Vignesh D. Yeram ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors..Respondents Mr. R.K. Mendadkar, for the Petitioner Mr. A.Sayed, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : CORAM : CORAM : F.I. F.I. F.I. REBELLO & REBELLO & REBELLO & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. MOHTA, JJ. MOHTA, JJ. DATED : MARCH 23, 2006 DATED : MARCH 23, 2006 DATED : MARCH 23, 2006 P.C. . The controversy is limited. The learned Counsel states that the certificate of the petitioner has been forwarded to respondent No.2 sometime in 2003. The certificate is yet to be validated. Considering that respondent No.2 is directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s claim within three months from today. The petitioner to serve a copy of this order on Respondent No.2. 2. In the meantime the Respondent No.4 is directed to permit the petitioner to appear for the examination. The result would be subject to the final order of respondent No.2. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not serve a copy of 2 this order on respondent No.2 the result of the petitioner would not be declared by the Competent Authority. 3. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.)