1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7018 OF 2008 1]Ujwala D/o. Bharat Kale Age 24 years, Occ. Service R/o. Savargaon, Tq. Tuljapur Dist. Osmanabad. 2] Vijayalaxmi D/o. Ashok Fulari Age 25 years, Occ. Service, C/o. Laxmibai Bakare, Akkalkot Road, Solapur, Tq. and Dist. Solapur. 3] Pratibha D/o. Shivajirao Bembde, Age 29 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Pangaon, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. 4] Savita D/o. Ambada Pandhare, Age 29 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Lohata (East), Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad. 5] Seema d/o. Uttamrao Thadve, Age 29 years, Occ. Service, R/o. C/o. Bhagwat Potdar, Bhanunagar, Osmanabad Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad. 6] Shamim D/o. Mubarak Choudhari, Age 29 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Yedshi, Tq. And Dist. Osmanabad. 2 7] Jayashri D/o. Navnath Raut Age 23 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Tambri Vibhag, Osmanabad Tq. And Dist. Osmanabad. 8] Meena D/o. Vishnu Jadhavar Age 20 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Tadgaon, Tq. Kalamb, Dist, Osmanabad. 9] Manisha D/o. Balasaheb Supekar, Age 36 years, Occ. Service, R/o. T.V. Centre, Anandnagar, Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist, Osmanabad. 10] Anita D/o. Narayan Bodke Age 30 years, Occ. Services R/o. Bangarwadi, Post. Ghat Pimpri, Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad. .. Petitioner/s Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Department of Rural Development & Water Conservation, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2] The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3] The Collector/Osmanabad District Osmanabad. {President – District Selection Committee} 4] The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. 5] Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd., Pune 3 Through its General Manager, Dr.Atul Vadegaonkar. 6] Smt. Anjali Shivaji Mundhe Age 23 years, Occ. Nil R/o. Ukadgaon, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur. 7] Sangeeta Vijaykumar Shete, Age 25 years, Occ. Nil, R/o. At Gavsud Post Pohner, Tq. And Dist. Osmanabad. 8] Shubhangi Manmath Swami Age 22 years, Occ. Nil R/o. Sarola (Bk) Tq. And Dist. Osmanabad. .. Respondent/s. --- Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate holding for Mr. S.A. Wakure, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. M.B. Kolpe, Advocate for respondent NO.4 Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for respondent No.5 Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 6 to 8. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : - 16th October, 2009. ORAL JUDGEMENT [ PER B.R. GAVAI, J.] :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 4 2] The respondent No.4 had published an advertisement for filling up the posts of Health Servant (Female Nurse) on 22nd June, 2008. After the examinations were conducted by the respondent No.5, the respondent NO.4 received the merit list and accordingly interviews were conducted. 3] However, it appears that certain complaints were received regarding the improper checking of the papers and as such, the respondent No.5 re-checked the papers. After re-checking, an additional list of candidates was prepared and certain candidates were selected. 4] After the interviews, a new select list was prepared on 18/11/2008. In the said list, the petitioner Nos. 1,2, 4 to 7 and 10 were again selected. However, the petitioner Nos. 3,8 and 9 were not selected and their names were kept on waiting list. In the meantime, a fresh advertisement came to be published on 19th June, 2009, for filling up the posts of Health Servant (Female). Accordingly, the petitioners have amended the petition. By the amendment, the petitioners have raised a ground that in accordance with the Govt. Resolutions, the waiting list is required to be kept alive for a period of 1 year and the persons from the waiting list are required to appointed, if the vacancies fell vacant within a period of one year from the date on which the waiting list is prepared. 5] In view of the withdrawal of the petition by the counsel for the petitioners on behalf of all the petitioners, except the petitioner Nos. 3, 8 and 5 9, on 30/3/2009, the petition needs to be considered only in respect of petitioner Nos. 3, 8,9 and the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 ( intervenors ). 6] In view of the interim orders passed by this court dated 28th November, 2008, the appointment orders issued to the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 have been stayed by the respondent Zilla Parishad. 7] The position regarding the Government Resolution which provides that a waiting list shall operate and be kept alive for a period of one year is not disputed. In that view of the matter, we find that since the Petitioner Nos.3, 8 and 9 were on the waiting list and since the vacancies have arisen during the period of one year from the date on which the waiting list was prepared, the said persons from the respective categories in the waiting list, should have been appointed by the respondent Zilla Parishad. However, from the advertisement dated 19th June, 2009, it can be seen that there are 6 posts for OBC category. However, in so far as V.J.N.T.(D) is concerned, no post has been advertised. 8] Shri Kolpe, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Zilla Parishad, on instructions of the Zilla Parishad, makes a categorical statement that there is no vacancy in the N.T.(D) category at present and there is also no likelihood of a vacancy in that category in the near future. 9] The waiting list is dated 18th November, 2008 and as such, the period of one year would lapse on 18th November, 2009. Since the 6 respondent No.4 has made a categorical statement that in the near future there is no likelihood of vacancy arising in N.T.(D) category, we find that the claim of the petitioner No.8 cannot be allowed. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in so far as the petitioner No.8 is concerned. 10] However, it can be seen that the petitioner Nos. 3 and 9 belong to OBC category. In the advertisement dated 19th June, 2009, 6 posts are advertised for OBC category. We, therefore, find that the claim of the petitioner Nos. 3 and 9 requires to be considered in view of the Govt. Resolution which requires the waiting list to be kept alive for a period of one year and since, admittedly, vacancies which are advertised have arisen within one year from the date on which the select list was published, we allow the petition in so far as petitioner Nos. 3 and 9 are concerned. The respondent No.4 is directed to issue appointment orders to the petitioner Nos. 3 and 9 within a period of 4 weeks from today. 11] It is not in dispute that even on absorption of petitioner Nos. 3 and 9, the selection of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 would not be affected. In that view of the matter, we clarify that the stay, if any granted, to the appointments of the respondent Nos. 6 to 8, shall stand vacated and the said respondents would also be permitted to be joined within a period of one month from today. We further clarify that the earlier order dated 7th July, 2009, granting stay to the advertisement shall also stand vacated and the selection process would proceed in accordance with law, except the 2 posts, on which we have directed the petitioner Nos. 3 & 9 to be appointed. The amount of costs 7 deposited while filing the affidavit in reply, would go to the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad. Rule is disposed of in aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-