JYOTI ASHOKRAO DHABADGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Both these petitions are heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The basic cause of action and the background are common and so also the basic facts, and therefore, this common judgment. Both the petitioners, based upon an advertisement issued by respondent No. 3, applied and appeared for a written examination. After the interview, the Selection Committee selected both the petitioners. Both of them joined services upon selection.

(2.) By impugned order dated 4.9.2012 respondents cancelled the appointments of the petitioners on the basis of the judgment passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) on 19.7.2012 in Original Application No. 90 of 2012 and MCA No. 42/12 (Review application) moved by original respondents 4 and 5. Admittedly both these petitioners were not parties to the proceedings initiated by Sonutai (applicant in original application). The operative part of the order in Original Application No. 90 of 2012 reads as under:

(3.) The original respondents 4 and 5 then preferred M.C.A. (Review) No. 42/12. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal disposed of the said review application. The operative part of the order thereof is as under: