1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 616 OF 2009 1. Pakhare Balasaheb Baburao, Age 38 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Bhise Wagholi, Taluka and Dist.Latur 2. Sayyed Naimoddin Nijamoddin, Age 38 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Bhise Wagholi, Taluka and Dist.Latur .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra (through its Secretary), Employment & Self Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Director of Employment & Self Employment District Konkan Bhawan, New Mumbai 3. The Collector, Latur 4. The Employment & Self Employment Office, Osmanabad 5. The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Latur .. Respondents Shri S.B.Rohile, Advocate for petitioners Shri N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondents 1 to 5 2 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 2nd JULY 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. We have heard Shri Rohile, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Jadhav, learned Assistant Govt.Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 5. A limited grievance of the petitioners as is to be found in this petition is that the respondents be directed to decide the application of the petitioners at Exh.`C’ to the petition and of directing respondent No.5 Tahsildar, Latur to issue appropriate certificates denoting that the petitioners have worked for a period of three years as per the orders issued by the Tahsildar. The petitioners have also prayed for directions to the respondents to consider the entitlement of the petitioners for permanent absorption in Government service pursuant to the policy of the Government contained in Government Resolutions dated 19.3.1998, 17.9.2001, 21.2.2004 and 26.8.2005. The petitioners further pray for directions to respondents to pay stipend of Rs.300/- p.m to the petitioners as per the Government Resolutions. 3 3. The respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply and in the affidavit-in-reply, at paragraphs 7 and 8, it is stated that in the event the petitioners 1 and 2 produce appropriate certificates in respect of the period for which they had worked, necessary corrections would be made in the list maintained in the office of respondents 2 and 4. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the period of experience of the petitioners as is mentioned against their names is on the basis of experience certificate issued by the authorities concerned. According to the petitioners, it is for the Respondent No.5 – Tahsildar to issue appropriate certificates as the petitioners have worked on the basis of the orders issued by the Tahsildar. An application appears to have been submitted by the petitioners to the Tahsildar, Latur for issuance of appropriate certificate which is dated 29.1.2008 which has remained to be undecided by the Tahsildar. 4. In the light of the limited nature of controversy involved in the present petition, we deem it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage and accordingly, allow this petition and direct the respondent No.5 – Tahsildar, Latur to decide the application submitted by the petitioners at Exh.`C’ dated 29.11.2008 and if the Tahsildar comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to be issued the certificates of having worked for three years as per the orders issued by the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar shall forthwith issue the necessary certificates. The 4 petitioners may thereafter produce the certificates before the respondents and the respondents within two weeks of the production of the aforesaid certificates and their scrutiny, effect the necessary changes in respect of the period of experience of the petitioners in the list maintained in the office of Respondents 2 and 4. In respect of the prayer clause (C) and (D), we grant liberty to the petitioners to submit an appropriate application to the respondents and if such representation/application is submitted by the petitioners, the respondents shall decide the same in accordance with law within period of eight weeks from the date of its presentation and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioners. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. ( R.K.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE vvr/616.09wp 5