FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2879 OF 2009 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 The grievance in this petition is regarding the appointment of Respondent No.4 to the post of Project Officer at Pachora Municipal Council, which was made on the basis of the advertisement dated 30th July, 2008. The advertisement clearly provides for twin eligibility criteria. Firstly, regarding educational qualification and secondly, two years working experience in social sector. 3 The petitioner fulfills both these criteria and it is so stated in the application of the petitioner. However, in the application filed by the respondent No.4 pursuant to the said advertisement, no disclosure was made regarding two years working experience in social sector as was required nor any certificate to support that position was enclosed. 4 We find force in the submission of the petitioner that the application of respondent No. 4 was defective and did not reflect the position that the respondent No.4 possessed both the requirements to fulfill the eligibility criteria. The fact that no certificate regarding working experience was accompanying to the application of respondent No.4 has been admitted even by respondent No.2 in the reply affidavit filed before us but, it is stated that such certificate was produced at the time of interview by the respondent No.4. We need not burden ourselves with the question whether that course was permissible. In our opinion, as the tenure of appointment of respondent No.4 has virtually come to an end and it is only till 31st March, 2010, we do not think it necessary to exercise writ jurisdiction for such short duration. As a matter of fact, appointment of respondent No.4 pursuant to the said advertisement was made upto 6th October, 2009 but, on expiry of that term, the respondent No.4 has been continued until 31st March, 2010. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner has amended the present petition also to question the order of extension issued in favour of the respondent No.4. 5 Besides, the petitioner apprehends that although the respondent No.4 was not eligible to be considered for appointment, the respondent No.4 is likely to be continued with further extension. This apprehension of the petitioner can be redressed by directing the respondent No.2 to fill up the post of Project Officer by inviting fresh applications and to consider all the applications, on its own merits, subject to availability of such post in future. In no case, the respondent No.2 shall give further extension to the respondent No.4 on the post of Project Officer. 6 For the aforesaid reasons, we dispose of this petition with above observations. (S.S. SHINDE, J) (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J) 08.03.2010. PLK/*