1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1027 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1027 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1027 OF 2008 Yeshwant Govindra Ghorpade .. Petitioner V/s. Zilla Parishad at Satara & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Nilesh Bhutekar i/b.Mr.U.P.Warunjikar for the Petitioner. Mr.M.B.Mahere for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr.Pradeep Gole for Respondent No.3. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 10TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 10TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 10TH JUNE, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . The Petitioner challenges the appointment of Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 has already been appointed. The Petitioner had filed application seeking a direction to the Respondents to consider the appointment of Petitioner as according to him he was in the waiting list and the post was available. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and 2 submits that on the basis of material supplied by the Petitioner, he was put in the waiting list, but later, on scrutiny, it was found that the certificate furnished by him was not 2 correct and the Petitioner had not requisite experience of five years as Junior Engineer and as such he was not eligible to be appointed as Junior Engineer. It is further submitted that the petitioner was a diploma holder and before he could be appointed as a Junior Engineer, it was required that he should have five years experience, which the Petitioner did not possess. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that no such decision has communicated to him. Therefore it is submitted to consider the request of the Petitioner and to pass appropriate order and communicate to the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner was aggrieved by appointment of Respondent No.3. The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that services of Respondent No. 3 have has already been terminated. 3. In view of the above no further order needs to be passed and the writ petition is disposed of. 4. In view of disposal of the writ petition itself, the civil application no.1319 of 2008 does not survive and is disposed of as such. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) 3 (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)