1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.718/2009 ( Yogesh s/o Mahadeorao Dhamange ..Vs.. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Adv. for petitioner. Mr. M.K. Pathan, A.G.P. for respondent no.1. Mr. A.S. Jaiswal, Adv. for respondent nos.2 to 4. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & S.B. DESHMUKH JJ. DATE : 31.3.2011. 1. By this petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider him for selection to the post of Junior Clerk. 2. The petitioner was selected in pursuance to an advertisement dated 19th of August 2004 for filing up the posts of Junior Clerk. In M.C.A. No.793/2005 in W.P. No.1719/2005 the Division Bench of this Court on 30/6/2008 passed the following order - “The appointing authority shall first exhaust the selection list in regard to advertisement dated 19th August, 2004, to fill in 61 vacancies which are still available in relation thereto. On filing up the said 61 posts from out of the eligible candidates, it will be open to the appointing authority to treat the 2 said selection list and/or selection process in question having been exhausted and no more pending.” 3. In addition some other posts were to be filled up in pursuance to the subsequent advertisements. It is not in dispute that 61 posts were to be filled up from the list prepared in pursuance to the advertisement of the year 2004. the only contention of Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, is that while filing up 61 posts from the 2004 list, 11 persons did not turn in spite of being issued joining orders. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, petitioner is 62nd candidate and it is necessary for the respondents to fill up 61 posts by appointing the petitioner, as contemplated by the Division Bench in the aforesaid order. 4. Mr. Jaiswal, learned Advocate for the respondent nos.2 to 4, submitted that it’s true that out of 61 posts, which were to be filled up from the advertisement of 2004, 11 candidates did not turn up for joining. He further submitted that in ordinary course it might have been possible to consider appointing the candidates 61 onwards for filling up those posts in the place of those who did not join. However, the learned Advocate for the respondent nos.2 to 4, has 3 pointed out that a specific proposal was made by the learned District Judge, Gadchiroli to the High Court for getting other persons beyond 61 on a waiting list for the purpose of appointment, in case the vacancies remain but this proposal was specifically rejected by the High Court and therefore, it is not possible for the respondents to appoint them. It is true, that if there are a fixed number of vacancies which are to be filled up in a particular list and if some candidates out of that list did not join, the vacancies of those who did not join may be filled up by those whose names appear in addition to the original numbers in the list. Thus, if 61 posts were to be filled up out of a list of 61 candidates and some did not join, the candidates in the list from 61 onwards may be considered. However, this demand is governed by facts of a particular case and it cannot be said that in view of a general preposition of law candidates must be appointed from a waiting list. In this case the High Court has specifically ordered that a waiting list should not be prepared from the 2004 advertisement list. In these peculiar circumstances of the case, it is not possible for us to grant any relief to the petitioner. Petition is therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.