1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5128 OF 2010 Sumit Madhukarrao Lande .. PETITIONER VERSUS The Zilla Parishad, Beed Notice to be served on its Chief Executive Officer ..RESPONDENT Mr.R.R.Mantri, Advocate for petitioner CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 24th June 2010 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner on the basis of the selection of the petitioner for the post of Secondary Shikshan Sevak. 2. The Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in Sunil vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (5), Mh.L.J.436 had directed that persons belonging to the Earthquake affected category and Project affected category, were not required to be compete in the selection process along 2 with others and were entitled to be appointed on the basis of their application. The petitioner during that period came to be selected. However, no appointment order was issued to the petitioner. Meanwhile, Full Bench of this Court in Rajendra Pandurang Pagare and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 962, which was constituted to decide the correctness of the view expressed by the Division Bench, overruled the judgment of the Division Bench and held that the Project affected persons etc. would be required to compete along with others belonging to their category and the selection process could not be subverted in the manner which was done by the authorities. The petitioner, obviously, in the light of the view expressed by the Full Bench of this Court has not been issued with any appointment order. The petitioner now claims that since he was selected, the appointment order be issued to him. 3. A selected candidate or a candidate whose name figures in the select list does not get any legally enforceable right at all. Since no appointment order has been issued to the petitioner, in the light of the ratio of the Full Bench, according to us, the relief which the petitioner has prayed for in this petition, cannot be granted to the petitioner. 3 4. After hearing Mr.R.R.Mantri, learned Counsel for the petitioner, according to us there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed summarily and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/5128.10wp)