1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6067 OF 2009 Aakash s/o Anurath Lokhande, Age : 19 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Osmanabad, Tq. Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Osmanabad Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad 3. Member Secretary, District Selection Committee and Dy. Chief Executive Officer, (Administration), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr N.V. Gaware, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent no.1; Mr S.B. Ghute, Advocate for respondents no.2 & 3. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6085 OF 2009 2 Pravin s/o Bharat Waghmare, Age : 26 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Chikhali, Tq. Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Osmanabad Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad 3. Member Secretary, District Selection Committee and Dy. Chief Executive Officer, (Administration), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr N.V. Gaware, Advocate for the petitioner; Mrs A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent no.1; Mr S.B. Ghute, Advocate for respondents no.2 & 3. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6069 OF 2009 Amol s/o Uttareshwar Raut, Age : 31 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Vairag, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur ..PETITIONER VERSUS 3 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Osmanabad Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad 3. Member Secretary, District Selection Committee and Dy. Chief Executive Officer, (Administration), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr N.V. Gaware, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr K. G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent no.1; Mr S.B. Ghute, Advocate for respondents no.2 & 3. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 5th April, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. Since the grievance raised in these three petitions is similar, these petitions are being heard finally and are decided by this common judgment. 4 3. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents no.2 & 3 to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioners for the post of Attendant (Parichar) with respondent no.2 pursuant to the recruitment process undertaken by advertisement dated 5.5.2008. 4. On notice of these petitions being issued to the respondents, respondents no.2 & 3 have filed their affidavit in reply. At paragraph 7 of the affidavit in reply it is stated thus :- "I say that, the name of present petitioner is figuring in selection list which has been prepared by this answering respondent and the appointment of the present petitioner is delayed on account of pendency of writ petition Nos. 6655/2008, 6502/2008, 1641/2008 before this Hon'ble High Court. I say that, no sooner the said writ petitions are disposed off and if the petitioner is found to be meritorious, the petitioner would be issued appointment order." 5. Learned Counsel for respondents no.2 & 3 very fairly brought to our notice the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 6828/2008, 677/2009, 5622/2008, 6466/2008, 7024/2009, 4898/2009 and 4900/2009, 5 to which one of us (P.V. Hardas, J.) was a member. In the light of the said judgment, learned Counsel for respondents no.2 & 3 has stated that the petitioners in the present petitions are eligible and their marks also now stand increased and respondents no.2 & 3 would be issuing appointment orders to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court. 6. We accordingly allow these petitions accepting the statement made by the learned Counsel for respondents no.2 & 3 that the appointment order to the petitioners would be issued within four weeks from today. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp6067.09 6