1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3125 OF 2007 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders Mr.A.S.Shelke, learned counsel for petitioners. Mr.D.R.Kale, learned AGP for respondent State. (CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL, AND A.V.POTDAR, JJ.) DATE : 26/04/2010 1. Heard. 2. Petitioners have approached the Tribunal earlier in Original Application No.591/2002, for regularization of their services as they had completed 5 years of service on daily wages, under the scheme framed by the State Government. The Tribunal , by an order dated 24/03/2003, directed the authorities to take a final decision on the proposal dated 24/12/1999 and 19/03/2002. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that their names were enlisted in the proposal for regularization. 2 This order came to be challenged by the respondent State in Writ Petition no. 342/2004. By an order dated 27/01/2005, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal heard the matter on merits and reached the conclusion that the petitioners were not eligible for regularization in view of condition no.1 of Government Resolution dated 19/10/1996, as they did not complete 240 days, excluding their working days under Employment Guarantee Scheme. 3. Mr.Shelke, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the State failed to produce cogent and reliable evidence in support of their contention that they are not eligible for regularization of their services. The State had asked for review of the order passed by the Tribunal in absence of their being any ground for the same. The counsel in other words submits that once the State had adopted the stand and forwarded the proposal for regularization, 3 the State is estopped from taking the reverse stand to the prejudice of the petitioners. 4. The petitioners had an ample opportunity to establish their case before the High Court and before the Tribunal. We find that the petitioners could not demonstrate that they are eligible for regularization of their services under the Government Resolution dated 19/10/1996. We can not accept this submission that the State shall not be permitted to point out apparent mistake or error occurred in the stand of the State, When the matter was earlier contested on merits in the proceeding of Original Application No.591/2002, the State Authorities noticed the mistake and error later on and accordingly the stand was adopted before the High Court and the matter came to be remanded to the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the rival submissions of the parties and by way of a reasoned order, rejected the contentions of the petitioners. 4 5. In the exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, we do not find any error in the view adopted by the Tribunal. There is no merits in the petition. Writ petition is dismissed. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (NARESH H.PATIL, J.) khs/APRIL 2010/wp3125-07