IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 530 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 530 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 530 OF 2006 Sanjaykumar Arjun Javras. ] .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India & Anr. ] .. Respondents Mr. D.V. Gangal for the petitioner. Mr. T.J. Pandian for the respondent No.2. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 09TH MARCH, 2006 P.C. : . Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. It is a case of the petitioner that he was entitled to be regularised as (i) he had completed more than 120 days; (ii) he was VIIIth Standard pass and (iii) his age at the relevant time was 38 years. 3. We have perused the impugned order dated 24th December, 2004, wherein the case of the petitioner bearing O.A. No.860 of 2003 alongwith other cases were : 2 : considered. We find from the order that there is no specific reference to the case of the petitioner nor have the contentions urged by the petitioner been dealt with. In the light of that, the impugned order, insofar as O.A. No.860 of 2003, will have to be set aside and the matter will have to be remanded back to the Tribunal to hear the petitioner herein and dispose of the matter according to law. 4. Subsequent to the judgment of 24th December, 2004, the petitioner also preferred a Review. That Review was dismissed on the ground that there was a delay. 5. Considering the above and as the main order itself is liable to be set aside, we make Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Now the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the petitioner’s case on merits not later than 31st July, 2006. Sd/- [F.I. [F.I. [F.I. REBELLO, J.] REBELLO, J.] REBELLO, J.] Sd/- [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.]