1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3760 OF 2010 Prashant Vasantrao Tekade Vs. Z. P. Yavatmal thr C. E. O. & Ors. ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri S. Khedkar Adv for petitioner. Shri J. Y. Ghurde Adv for respondent 1. Shri Khubalkar AGP for respondents 3 & 4. CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & P. D. KODE JJ. DATED: 15th NOVEMBER, 2011. Heard Shri Khedkar learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ghurde learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned AGP for respondents 2 to 4. It is not in dispute that after advertisement dated 06.05.2008 in response to which petitioner had applied there had been two more advertisements. The life of Select List prepared is one year. The employer has come up with defence before this Court that out of the two O. B. C. reserved posts, one was reserved for ex-serviceman. Even the petitioner is not disputing this 2 position. According to the petitioner when candidate was not available from that category employer had to inform the Government for de-reservation. That de-reserved post has been granted in 2009. Learned counsel therefore states that though life of said select list had expired, as de-reservation has come after expiry of that life, the entitlement of petitioner for appointment against O.B.C. reservation needs to be considered. We do not find any merit in this contention. The life of select list cannot be extended by a Court of law and is not dependent upon any such contingency. Advertisement had not specified that post to be filled in as reserved for ex-serviceman. Reliance has been placed on a Circular dated 14.05.1986 issued by State Government. Clause 6 thereof shows that even if such ex-serviceman is not available the reservation for him is required to be carried forward for one year. Here that does not appear to be complied with. Taking over all review of the matter, we do not find any right in petitioner for consideration for such appointment. Life of Select List had already expired. There were two subsequent advertisements in response to which petitioner had not applied. 3 If petitioner had any other grievance, we leave that grievance open. As we find present grievance misconceived, we dispose of the petition. JUDGE JUDGE svk