(1) CA. 1970.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1970 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5691 OF 2010 Bharat S/o Malojirao Tangade APPLICANT/ PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. K.B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 02ND MAY, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. The Civil Application has been filed for a direction to the respondents not to fill in the post of Laboratory Technician till the respondent no.1 decides the proposal for amendment of the rules in accordance with the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.12.2010. A further direction is sought that the process of recruitment to the post of Laboratory Technician in pursuance of the advertisement dated 5.10.2008 should be stayed. (2) CA. 1970.2011 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the proposal for amendment of the rules has not been finalised as yet, without which the respondents have gone ahead with the recruitment process. The learned counsel also urged that if the relief claimed is denied to the petitioner, his Petition would become infructuous. It is, therefore, contended that the Civil Application should be allowed. 3. The learned A.G.P. points out that the prayer in the present Civil Application is the same as prayer (C) in the Writ Petition. He points out that the Division Bench while admitting the Petition has not granted this prayer and there is no need to grant that prayer at this stage. 4. We have perused a copy of the order of the Division Bench in which it is observed that the pendency of the Writ Petition would not come in the way of the Government considering the proposal for amendment of the rules. The Court observed that the State Government was expected to finalise the (3) CA. 1970.2011 proposal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of the order. Significantly, this Court did not grant any stay to the selection process at that stage. 5. In our opinion, Civil Application cannot be granted, as firstly the prayer sought in the Civil Application was not granted when Rule was issued by the Division Bench. Secondly, the period of six months stipulated by the Division Bench for deciding the proposal for amendment of the rules is yet to be completed and, therefore, we see no reason to grant the Civil Application. Civil Application dismissed. 6. Mr. Thombre persists in arguing the matter even after the order has been passed. We have made it very clear that we will not entertain any further arguments in the matter. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] arp