-HITLIST-Sanjay Madhusudan Punekar v. State of Maharashtra (S.C.) -RECORD-BS232841 -CITATION-2003(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 5 SETTING DONE BY BEDI\ zzzz3 -COURT-<ß>SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<þ> -JUDGE-Before:- Bharucha S.P. and Sabharwal Y.K., JJ.<þ> -NO- Civil Appeal No. 7008 of 2001 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4224 of 2000. D/d. -DECISIONDATE-5.10.2001.<þ> -EXTRATEXT- -PETITIONER- Sanjay Madhusudan Punekar - Appellant. <þ> Versus<þ> -RESPONDENT- State of Maharashtra & others - Respondents. <þ> -ADVOCATE- For the Petitioner :- V.A. Mohta, Sr. A. & Shivaji M. Jadhav, Advocate.<þ> For the Respondent :- Ms. Meera Mathur, M/s. J.B. Dadachanji & Co. & S.V. Desphande, Advocate.<þ> -HEADNOTE-<ß>Constitution of India, Article BTZKACA401ETZK342 - Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, Part IX, Mah. Entry 19 - Appointment of a Koshti - Appointment made long back - Judgment in 2001(1)SCC 4 shall not affect appointment of appellant.<þ> [Para ]<þ> -CASEREF-<ß>Cases Referred :-<þ> State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others, 2001(1) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)620 : 2001(1) Mh.L.J. (S.C.)1 : 2001(1) S.C.C. 4.<þ> -ORDER- JUDGMENT<þ> <ß>Bharucha S.P J. - Leave granted.<þ> This Court has now decided the question of law against the appellant. At the same time, it has taken notice of the passage of time and, therefore, made its order prospective, keeping unaffected appointments that had become final. This is an appropriate case in which to apply the same principle having regard to the fact that the appointment of the appellant was made long back. Therefore, the only order that needs to be made is to say that the judgment of this Court in (<ß><ï>State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others), 2001(1) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)620 : 2001(1) Mh.L.J. (S.C.)1 : 2001(1) S.C.C. 4, shall not affect the appointment of the appellant.<þ> Order on the appeal accordingly. <þ> No order/as to costs.<þ> -RESULT- Order accordingly.<þ>

<þ>