WP 6319/11 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6319/2011 Shri Devendra Vithalrao Dole, age 24 yrs., occu.education, r/o Gulaj Tq.Geoerai Dist.Beed. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary to the Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2] The Collector / Chairman, District Selection Committee, Collector Office, Aurangabad. 3] The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 4] The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. ...Respondents... ..... Shri K.D. Bade Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Shri V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondent nos.3 & 4. ..... CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: 07.09.2011 WP 6319/11 - 2 - PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner for the post of Live Stock Supervisor. 3] In pursuance to the advertisement issued by respondent no.3 for the post of Live Stock Supervisor, the petitioner had applied against the category of minor vision handicap. The petitioner was at Sr.No.2 in the waiting list. The candidate at Sr. No.1 namely Parmeshwar Baban Batule was found disqualified for appointment on the said post. Accordingly, on 23.3.2011, the petitioner was sent to the Assistant Resident Medical Officer, Government Medical College and Hospital at Aurangabad. On 13.6.2011, the Medical Board sent a report to the respondents certifying therein that the petitioner was qualified to hold the post for which he was selected. 4] The petitioner is being denied the appointment on the ground that the select list is only for a period of one year and that the period of one year has lapsed. 5] Admittedly, the select list was published on 19.5.2010. The candidate at WP 6319/11 - 3 - Sr.No.1 was found disqualified on 27.10.2010. The petitioner was sent for medical examination on 23.3.2011. The petitioner was found to be qualified and a report was sent to the respondent – authorities on 13.6.2011. As such the petitioner could have been very well appointed on 27.10.2010 or 23.3.2011. If there is any delay in correspondence between the Medical Board and the respondents, the petitioner cannot be faulted with. The petitioner’s eligibility will have to be counted on the date on which the candidate at Sr.No.1 was found to be ineligible or at least 23.3.2011 i.e. the date on which the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board and was found to be qualified. 6] The delay in internal correspondence between the Medical Board and the respondent-authorities cannot be permitted to deprive the petitioner of his appointment to which he was entitled to in the month of March, 2011, which is much within the period of one year from the date of publication of select list. 7] In that view of the matter, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A). The appointment order shall be issued within a period of one month from today. (M.T. JOSHI, J.) (B.R. GAVAI, J.) ndk/c791130