wp6401.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6401 OF 2009. Dilip s/o Prabhakarrao Taru. ... PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri K.M. Nagarkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri D.R. Kale, AGP for State. Shri P.G. Rodge, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Shri N.N. Chitlange, Advocate for R. No.7. ... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 18th April, 2011. PER COURT: 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner because he has not been appointed to the post of Superintendent / Section Officer. Although the petitioner's name was included in the waiting list, he was not appointed as respondent No.7 was found suitable. Several contentions are raised by the petitioner in the wp6401.09 2 petition pointing out how the appointment of the respondent No.7 was illegal. The petitioner has prayed that - (1) the appointment order issued in favour of the respondent No.7 should be set aside; and (2) that he should be appointed as Superintendent / Section Officer w.e.f. 21.5.2008 with all consequential benefits. 2. An affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.2,3,4 and 6 indicating that action has been taken against the respondent No.7. A show cause notice has been issued to him. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the prayer of the petitioner that action should be taken against the respondent No.7 has been satisfied. The notice dated 19.3.2011 issued to the Respondent No.7 indicates that a departmental enquiry would be initiated in case his explanation to the notice is not found to be satisfactory. 3. The contention of the petitioner that since action has been taken against the respondent No. 7, he should be automatically appointed to the wp6401.09 3 post is unfounded. The respondent No.7 is entitled to submit his explanation to the show cause notice. If it is not found to be satisfactory, action would be initiated against him under the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services Rules. Unless the services of respondent no.7 are terminated, the question of appointing the petitioner in his place does not arise. In any event, we are informed that the waiting list is maintained only for one year. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the only suitable candidate in case the respondent No.7 is terminated from service. This contention is of no consequence since the waiting list is maintained only for a period of one year. 4. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the petition. The petition is rejected. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J] Kadam/*