1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3713 OF 2003 Shri Ajit Sukhdeo Tadge ..... Petitioner. V/s The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents. ---- Mr. Vivek Salunke i/b Mr. P.B. Shah for the petitioner. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE : 21st February 2008. P.C.: 1. The petitioner, by this Petition, challenges the Resolution passed by the General Body of the respondent No.2 - Corporation, refusing to approve the list prepared by the Panel, of the candidates selected for appointment to various vacant posts in the Corporation. The petitioner also challenges the Selection List prepared by the Corporation for making appointment to the vacant posts after issuing public advertisement. 2. The necessary facts are that there were several posts vacant in the Municipal Corporation. The Government, therefore, issued a direction that the Corporation should fill-in those posts. The Corporation, accordingly, called for the names from the Employment Exchange and interviewed the candidates who were recommended by 2 the Employment Exchange and prepared a Selection List. That list was placed before the General Body for approval. When the matter came up before the General Body, the General Body found that, under the rules framed under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, the Municipal Corporation cannot make any appointment without issuing a public advertisement and, therefore, the General Body did not approve the Selection List. As a consequence, public advertisement in the news-paper was issued, inviting applications. Admittedly, the petitioner applied. The petitioner was called for an interview but was not selected. The petitioner, therefore, amended the Petition and challenged the Selection List on the ground that certain persons, who were related to the office bearers of the Municipal Corporation, have been selected. 3. Now, so far as the validity of the Resolution of the General Body declining to approve the selection list prepared on the earlier occasion is concerned, no fault can be found with the action of the Corporation in view of the provisions of the rule which casts a duty on the Corporation to issue public advertisement before making any appointment to the posts vacant in the Corporation. Obviously, therefore, without complying that rule, merely by calling the candidates from Employment Exchange, Selection List could not have been prepared. So far as the challenge to the Selection List prepared after the advertisement was issued is concerned, allegation is made that certain candidates whose names are disclosed in the Petition are related to some office bearers of the Corporation. Neither the selected candidates nor the office bearers against whom the allegation of 3 malice has been made, have been joined as parties to the Petition. In the absence of office bearers against whom allegation of malice is made and the candidates whose selection, according to the petitioner, is vitiated because of malice, being joined as as party-respondents, Petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary party and, therefore, we cannot hold an inquiry into that aspect of the matter in the absence of necessary party. 4. Taking an overall view of the matter, therefore, there is no substance in the Petition. Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4