1wp-217-09 Lrs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. Petitioner/s Respondent/s 217/2009 Ramesh Panditrao Wagh Nasik Zilla Parishad & Anr 421/2009 Somnath Eknath Babhad Nasik Zilla Parishad & Anr 422/2009 Sandip Dashrath Gite Nasik Zilla Parishad and Anr 424/2009 Sunil Punjaji Darade Nasik Zilla Parishad and Anr 425/2009 Jaswant Gambhir Raysingh Nasik Zilla Parishad and Anr 426/2009 Pravin Narayan Jadhav Nasik Zilla Parishad and Anr CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND K.K.TATED,JJ DATED: 23RD NOVEMBER,2009 Mr A.S. Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner in all the 2wp-217-09 petitions. Mr P. L. Bhujbal, Advocate for Respondent No.1(Zilla Parishad,Nashik. Mr V.S. Gokhale, A.G.P., for Respondent No.2-State. P.C.:- 1. By these petitions, the petitioners seek to enforce the orders passed by the State Government, dated 6.7.2006 and 10.3.2008. Mr Rashid Gafoor sayyad, the Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, itself, has filed affidavit stating thus: I say that taking into consideration the Order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court dated 28.7.2004 and the said Circular dated 25.8.2005, it appears that the appointment of the Petitioner is a back-door entry and is not inconsonance with the proposal submitted by the Zilla Parishad, Nashik. I say that, therefore, the directions dated 6.7.2006 issued by the respondent No.2 are not proper and correct and the implementation of the said instructions/ directions would amount to a 3wp-217-09 back-door entry and non-compliance of the Order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. I say that in such a situation, the appointment of the Petitioner in Respondent No.1 would amount to violation of above guidelines. I say that after realising this position, the Government has decided to reconsider the said view which is under consideration of the Government . 2. It is, thus, clear, according to the Government, itself, the orders contained in the above said letters are not legal and the Government has decided to reconsider the said view. In such situation, in our opinion, it will not be appropriate for us to direct the Zilla Parishad to act upon those orders. Petitions are therefore rejected. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J) (K.K.TATED,J)