1 ndm 2900 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 2900 OF 2010 Maharashtra Public Service Commission . Petitioner vs Shri Jaydeep Narendra Bhoir & ors .. Respondents Mr.Vaibhav Gaikwad for Petitioner Mr.N.V.Bandivadekar for Respondent nos. 1 to 5,7 to 9 & 11 Mr.S.R.Nargolkar AGP for Respondent no.12 Coram : D.D.SINHA & MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ Date: 8th June, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for respondents. 2. The writ petition is directed against an interim order dated 19th March, 2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.187 of 2010 whereby the petitioner M.P.S.C. is directed to either hold interview of the respondent nos. 1 to 11 before 29.3.2010 or make a statement on that date as to when the interview will be held. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the process of interview undertaken by th the petitioner was already over when the tribunal passed the impugned interim order. It is further 2 contended that the interview process was initiated by the petitioner to fill up 14 posts namely (1) District Fisheries Development Officer, Fisheries Training Officer Fisheries Development Officer, Curator, (Taraporewalla Acquarium, Group-B. It is contended that these are class I posts and the procedure involved is lengthy. It is further contended that in the circumstances if the tribunal is directed to decide the original application filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 11 on merits within a stipulated period, all these lengthy exercise would be avoided and the decision on merits of the issues would also be available. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 11 has submitted that the petitioner is against the impugned order passed by the tribunal whereby the petitioner were directed to hold interviews of respondent nos. 1 to 11. It is contended that no prejudice as such would be caused to the petitioner if interim direction is complied with since the entire process of holding interview by the petitioner wold be subject to the result of the original application. 4. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective parties. It is no doubt true that this court would be slow in showing indulgence against the interim order passed by the tribunal. However, looking to the fact that the process of interview earlier initiated to fil up the above referred post was over by the time the tribunal passed the interim order, we feel it appropriate in such peculiar circumstances to pass the following order: ORDER 1. The tribunal is directed to decide original application No.187/2010 on its own merits in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard as early as possible in any case not beyond the period of two months from the date of communication of this order. In the meantime, interim order dated 29th March, 2010 need not be given effect. It is 3 needless to mention that the process of selection undertaken by the petitioner would be subject to the result of the original application. We expect the petitioner not to issue appointment orders till the original application is decided on merits. Mrs Mridula Bhatkar, J D.D.Sinha, J