:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOBBY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOBBY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOBBY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 93 OF 2003 REVIEW PETITION NO. 93 OF 2003 REVIEW PETITION NO. 93 OF 2003 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3536 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO. 3536 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO. 3536 OF 2003 Dattatraya Namdeo Dhere ..Applicant (Ori.Petitioner) versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar for the Applicant - Original Petitioner. Mr. R. D. Rane, Additional Government Pleader for the State. CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE, & CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE, & CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE, & V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 7TH JULY, 2006 DATE : 7TH JULY, 2006 DATE : 7TH JULY, 2006 ORAL ORDER (Per. D. G. Deshpande, J.) : ORAL ORDER (Per. D. G. Deshpande, J.) : ORAL ORDER (Per. D. G. Deshpande, J.) : (In Chamber) (In Chamber) (In Chamber) 1. Heard Mr. Bandiwadekar learned Counsel for the Applicant - Original Petitioner and Mr. R. D. Rane, AGP for the State of Maharashtra. 2. The order of which review is sought by the Applicant - Original Petitioner in this review petition is the order of the Division Bench presided over by Justice C. K. Thakker, the then Chief :2: Justice, and, one of us Justice V. K. Tahilramani. It is an order dated 3.6.2003 in Writ Petition No. 3536 of 2003 (Exhibit G to the Petition). The writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of termination from service. He was terminated on the ground that he was not entitled to be appointed as a Gram Sevak as nominee of the freedom fighter. When that petition was decided, counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the petitioner was appointed through the Selection Board on regular basis by order dated 7.7.1993, and, since his appointment as nominee of the freedom fighter and appointment by the Service Selection Board, were two different avenues, his removal from service on the ground that he is not a nominee of the freedom fighter, does not affect his selection by the Selection Board. However, while dealing with that aspect of the matter, the Division Bench in paragraph 9 observed that "....the case of the "....the case of the "....the case of the petitioner came to be considered by the selection petitioner came to be considered by the selection petitioner came to be considered by the selection board as the petitioner was in service." board as the petitioner was in service." board as the petitioner was in service." 3. Counsel for the Applicant - Original Petitioner pointed out that these observations are wrong because the entire process of the Selection :3: Board was totally an independent process of the Selection Board started in the year 1991. Pursuant to the advertisement issued, the petitioner applied, appeared in the written examination and the oral interview, passed both the examinations, and, was thereafter selected and recommended by the respondent No.2 and then appointment letter was issued to him on 7.7.1993. This selection, therefore, according to the petitioner has nothing to do with the petitioner’s selection as a relative or nominee of the freedom fighter, and, therefore, if the petitioner is selected by the Selection Board, independently, then the observations in the aforesaid Order dated 3.6.2003 in Writ Petition NO. 3536 of 2003 should be set aside, otherwise the petitioner is likely to loose his second job also. 4. Learned AGP, when confronted with these facts, had to admit that the selection of the petitioner by the Selection Board was totally different and had nothing to do with the selection of the Applicant - Original Petitioner as a freedom fighter’s nominee or relative. The learned AGP could not bring to our notice that Selection Board selected the Applicant - Original Petitioner only :4: because he was in service. In this view of the matter, this Review Petition has to be allowed. When, we heard the matter, the petitioner was personally present with his Advocate and the Applicant - petitioner stated that he will not claim back wages but continuity of service should be given to him and he should be given one weeks time to join his services as a Gram Sevak, pursuant to the appointment letter dated 7.7.1993. 5. In the result, this review petition is allowed. Observations in the Order dated 3.6.2003 passed in Writ petition No. 3536 of 2003 that the Selection Board selected the Applicant - Original petitioner because he was in service, are not correct. Consequently the selection of the Applicant - Original Petitioner by Selection Board is declared independent and the Applicant - Original Petitioner should be allowed to join his services as a Gram Sevak within one week from today i.e. 7th July, 2006. The Applicant - Original Petitioner’s statement is recorded to the effect that he will not claim backwages but his continuity of service should be from the date of appointment. Review Petition disposed of accordingly. :5: (D.G. DESHPANDE, J. ) (D.G. DESHPANDE, J. ) (D.G. DESHPANDE, J. ) ( V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) ( V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) ( V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)