1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.1316 OF 1994. PETITIONER : Ganesh son of Sukhdeorao Nandane, aged about 28 years, resident of Rani Laxmibai Chowk, Pan Market, Bhoipura, Akot, Tq. Akot, Distt. Akola. -vs- RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Bombay-32. 2. Subordinate Selection Board, Akola, District-Akola, through its Secretary. 3. Collector, Akola, Distt: Akola. 4. Deputy Director, Sports and Youth Services, Nagpur. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court s or Judge s appearances, Court's orders or direction Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri P. C. Madkholkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri YB Mandpe AGP for R-1 to 4. Coram : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. Dated : 1 st SEPTEMBER, 2009. Heard. The grievance made by Advocate Shri Madkholkar for the Petitioner is that the 2 selection of the Petitioner as a Junior Clerk was informed to him by Subordinate Selection Board by communication dated 28-12-1993, the Respondent No.4 did not issue the appointment order to the Petitioner within one month as required by the Government Resolution dated 5-5-1989. He states that after the petition was filed and the notice was issued by this Court on 6-5-1994, the Petitioner was permitted to join on 19-7-1994 and thereafter, the Petitioner was given the appointment. The return filed by the Government on affidavit shows that the recommendation of Subordinate Selection Board in favour of the Petitioner was received by it only on 19-5-1994. The said recommendation is annexed by them as ANNEXURE R-1 and the Respondent No. 4 Dy. Director, Sports and Youth Services Nagpur, has, therefore, stated that because of these circumstances, there was no question of giving the Petitioner employment before 3 19-5-1994. Advocate Mr. Madkholkar has contended that Annexure R-1 with the return i.e. the communication dated 11-5-1994 is not the recommendation, but it is a warning to Respondent No.4 and he states that becasue the earlier recommendation in favour of the Petitioner was not implemented, the warning was issued. The said communication dated 11-5-1994 does not indicate that the selection of the petitioner as is apparent from the communication dated 20-12-1993 was ever informed by Service Selection Board before 11-5-1994 to the Respondent NO.4. The intimation dated 28-12-1993 sent by the Secretary or Subordinate Selection Board to the Petitioner as Annexure-B with the petition also does not show that the copy has been forwarded to Respondent No.4 though in the body it is stipulated that the selection has been informed to Respondent No.4. 4 The return also shows that after the receipt of letter dated 11-5-1994, the appointment order was issued on 10/17-06-1994. The petitioner thereafter, has joined on 19-7-1994. Thus, within a period of one month of the receipt of recommendation by the Office of the Respondent no.4, the appointment order came to be issued to the Petitioner. In these circumstances, the prayers made by the Petitioner claiming salary for the period prior to 19 th July 1994 and from 28-01-1994 cannot be granted. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/