GAURISHANKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learner advocate for the petitioner as also the learned AGP.

(2.) The petitioner who has been seeking regularization of his appointment by virtue of a Government Resolution dtd. 5/2/2019 was seeking consideration of a proposal by the State submitted by the Respondent No.6 - Municipal Council dtd. 6/3/2019. By the order dtd. 1/3/2021 in WP No.7384/2009 we had called upon the respondent No.2 therein who is the respondent No.4 herein to take a decision within four months. Perhaps bound by the time limit, by the impugned order dtd. 21/3/2022, the petitioner's proposal has been turned down with the observation that no original record was produced by him or was available with the Municipal Council.

(3.) The Learned advocate for the Petitioner tenders across the bar, a communication dtd. 13/9/2022, addressed to the Chief Officer of the Respondent No.6 - Municipal Council by the respondent No.3 calling upon all the record in respect of the petitioner, perhaps to take a decision regarding regularization. This seems to be a supervening event inasmuch as once having turned down the proposal by the impugned communication still initiative has been taken with a right earnest to do the justice by calling upon the Municipal Council - responded No.6 to produce the record and even permitting the petitioner to produce such record duly certified by the Municipal Council.