1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.717 OF 2010 Dr.Devrao Satvaji Dakhure ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.742 OF 2010 Dr.Suresh Chunnilal Gupta ...Applicant/ Ori.Respdt.No.3 Versus Dr.Devrao Satvaji Dakhure & Ors. ...Opponents/ Ori.Respondents ...... Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for Petitioner. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, G.P. for Respondents 1 & 2. Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni i/b Mr.Satyam Acharya for Respondent No.3. Ms.S.P.Manchekar for Respondent No.4. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED:- APRIL 12, 2010. P.C. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the decision of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 28th December 2009 in the original Application No.685 of 2009. By the said 2 Judgment, the Tribunal directed the appropriate Authority to consider afresh the case of the Respondent No.3 for promotion in accordance with the provisions of the Government Circular dated 2nd April 1976 and communicate its decision to the Respondent No.3 within one month from the date of the order. The Tribunal proceeded to issue such direction on the assumption that the appropriate Authority has not taken conscious decision not to promote the Respondent No.3. According to the Petitioner, the said assumption is belied by the position stated in Office decision Exhibit `H’ to the Writ Petition which clearly mentions that conscious decision was taken by the Department in that behalf. In other words, the only basis on which the Tribunal directed the appropriate Authority to examine the claim of the Respondent No.3 being non-existing, this Petition ought to succeed. However, the Petition has been admitted on 28th January 2010. While admitting the Petition, the operation of the direction given by the Tribunal in the impugned decision has been stayed, after hearing both sides. The Respondent No.3 has now moved Civil Application for vacating the said ad-interim order passed on 28th January 2010. 2. Significantly, during the pendency of proceedings, the inquiry 3 pending against the Respondent No.3 has been finally terminated by exonerating Respondent No.3. If it is so, the bar on account of which the Respondent No.3 was not being considered for promotion stands lifted. In that sense, the principal issue to be examined in this Writ petition has become academic. However, whether the order passed in the disciplinary inquiry against the Respondent No.3 has the effect of completely exonerating the Respondent No.3 or otherwise is a matter to be examined by the appropriate Authority. If the appropriate Authority is convinced with that position, there is no reason why the claim of Respondent No.3 cannot be considered for promotion in accordance with law. We are in agreement with the submission made that instead of keeping the matter pending, the same can be disposed of on account of the subsequent development, leaving all questions open. We would once again reiterate that the effect of the order passed in the disciplinary inquiry against the Respondent No.3 whether results in exoneration and lifting the bar for considering the Respondent No.3 for promotion, is a matter to be examined by the appropriate Authority on its own merits and if it is found that now the Respondent No.3 has become eligible for consideration, the appropriate Authority may examine his claim in accordance with law. 4 3. Writ Petition as well as Civil Application disposed of on the above terms. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)