R.D. DHANUKA, J.

1. By consent of parties, the aforesaid writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. The State Government and the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board have made common arguments in all the five matters including in some of the civil applications. The petitioners also have made common arguments insofar as the submissions of law as well as identical facts are concerned. Some of the employees who were impleaded to the various petitions who are likely to be affected by this order have also advanced separate arguments partly adopting the submissions made by the State Government as well as by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and partly by pointing out their individual facts which would be summarized in the later part of this judgment.

The relevant facts and submissions in the petition in Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010:-

2. In Writ Petition No.3608 of 2010, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus and prays that the selection list including the waiting list as annexed with the writ petition at Ex.D for the post of Field Officer prepared by the respondent no.3 i.e. the Member Secretary, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board be quashed and set aside and seeks writ of mandamus by way of an order and direction against the State of Maharashtra, the Chairman, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and the Member Secretary, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board to publish a fresh advertisement by giving fresh advertisement for filling up the post of Field Officer in the respondent no.3, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board is hereinafter referred to as 'MPCB' for the sake of convenience).

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has completed his degree in engineering and is duly qualified for the post of Field Officer in the MPCB pursuant to the advertisement issued by the MPCB. The respondent no.1 is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the Officers of the MPCB who represents the MPCB. Respondent nos. 14 to 120 are the candidates who were selected by the MPCB for the post of Field Officer.

4. On 21st January, 2009, the MPCB published an advertisement in the newspaper inviting applications for various posts including the post of Field Officer. Insofar as the post of Field Officers are concerned, the said advertisement was published for inviting applications for filling up 34 posts. By a letter dated 27th January, 2009, the petitioner raised objection pointing out various lacunae including that the State Government had not given wide publication of advertisement and thus other duly qualified persons could not apply in response to the said advertisement. The petitioner called upon the MPCB to furnish various particulars.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the MPCB however suddenly published a list of candidates for the post of Field Officer including the waiting list. The said list provided the names of 105 candidates who were selected and further provided the names of 39 candidates who were shown in the waiting list. The said letter also provided the educational qualification of each of those candidates, their caste and also the marks obtained by them.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that though the advertisement was published by the MPCB in the month of January 2009, the actual selection was carried out after 10 months i.e. in the month of October 2009. The selection list was published on 6th November, 2009. The Government was formed in the State of Maharashtra and the Chief Minister had taken his oath on 7th November, 2009. It is the case of the petitioner that on 9th November, 2009 i.e. on Monday about 80% candidates who were selected by the MPCB for the post of Field Officer had joined the service. Within one day of the publication of the selection list, the call letters were alleged to have been received by the selected cand