WP 7394/11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7394/2011 Swapnil Gopal Thakur V/s The State & others. _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri K.D. Bade Patil, Advocate for respondent no.2. Shri U.S. Malte, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date: 14.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The limited grievance raised in the petition is that though the petitioner has been selected for the post of Junior Technician by the respondent no.3, he has been refused the appointment order on the ground of non submission of the validity certificate. WP 7394/11 2 This Court vide its judgment and order in a bunch of writ petitions being Writ Petition No.2136/2011 and others, decided on 25.8.2011, has struck down Clause 7 of the Government resolution dated 5.11.2009, which mandates the production of validity certificate prior to issuing the order of appointment. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3 that the judgment of this Court is subsequent to the date on which the selection has lapsed. Undisputedly, though the petitioner was duly selected, he has been denied the appointment only on the ground that he had failed to submit the validity certificate. The petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of legal position laid down by this Court. In that view of the matter, we allow the petition in the following terms. The petitioner shall be given provisional appointment order within a period WP 7394/11 3 of one month from today. The appointment of the petitioner shall be subject to the decision of the validity committee pertaining to his tribal claim. Merely because the petitioner has been granted provisional appointment, no equities would be carved out in favour of the petitioner. The respondent no.2 - committee shall decide the claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months from today. In the event the order of the scrutiny committee is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect for a period of four weeks further from the receipt thereof by the petitioner. (M.T. Joshi, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) Dt/- 14.12.2011 ndk/c14121151