1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 304 OF 2010 Kum. Anjali D/o Omprakash Toshniwal .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri R. F. Totala, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. A. V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri V. D. Sapkal, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 05TH JULY, 2010. PER COURT : . This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ for quashing and setting aside the decision of the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 01.01.2010 in Original Application No. 1056/2009 and also prays for issuance of 2 a writ directing the respondent No. 1 to issue order of continuation in favour of petitioner on account of her selection and appointment by the competent authority. The other prayer clauses pertain to ad-interim reliefs. 2. The petitioner came to be selected and appointed as instructor in fashion designing. The appointment of the petitioner came to be challenged before Aurangabad bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by the present respondent No. 3 contending therein that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed, as the certificate submitted by the petitioner was not in accordance with the eligibility which was prescribed. The Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 3 herein partly and directed the first respondent therein to initiate an enquiry about dispute of the experience certificate of the present petitioner by giving proper opportunity to the respondent No. 3. The Tribunal also directed that the respondent No. 3 therein shall conclude the enquiry on or before 31st August, 2009 and communicate the result of the enquiry to the applicant on or before 10th September, 2010 and thereafter if the applicant still had any grievance, the applicant therein would be at liberty to file fresh proceedings. In the said order, the Tribunal also 3 recorded a finding that in the event petitioner herein is not found eligible, appointments be given to the respondent No. 3 herein i. e. the original applicant before the Tribunal as the original applicant was a wait listed candidate who had been duly selected. 3. It appears that, enquiry came to be conducted and certain findings came to be recorded which were non application of the principles of natural justice and total disregard to the directions issued by the Tribunal. The petitioner herein, therefore filed Original Application No. 1044/2009 before the Aurangabad bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the original application and directed the respondents to furnish copies of the documents on which the respondents chose to rely. The Tribunal further directed that the decision on the show cause notice shall not be finalized unless the directions for issuance of copies to the present petitioner were complied with. Mean while it appears that, the enquiry came to be concluded against the petitioner and certain recommendations were made for taking action of termination against the present petitioner. Since the respondents had not taken any step pursuant to the recommendations in the enquiry, the respondent No. 3 herein 4 filed Original Application No. 1056/2009 before the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Though the petitioner herein was served, the petitioner chose to abstain herself from the proceeding before the Tribunal and the proceeding concluded ex-parte against the present petitioner. The Tribunal allowed the original application on the first premise that the present petitioner was not in employment since 19.12.2009, as the extension granted to the petitioner expired on 18.12.2009 and no fresh extension had been granted to the petitioner. The Tribunal further observed that finding recorded by the Tribunal in Original Application No. 07/2009 i. e. in the event the present petitioner was found ineligible the original applicant before it i. e. present respondent No. 3 should be given appointment was not challenged by any of the parties. The Tribunal further observed the contention of the respondent No. 3 that the wait list would operate for a period of one year from the date of its publication, as the Tribunal concluded that the Tribunal had issued directions regarding appointment of the present respondent in the event ineligibility of the present petitioner and that one year embargo was eclipsed. 4. The present petition has been filed challenging the 5 aforesaid order on the ground that the wait list could not operate beyond a period of one year and that the enquiry stood vitiated on account of failure of the respondents to provide adequate opportunity to the petitioner herein to defend herself. It is further urged before us that, the petitioner would be remediless in the sense that no forum would be available as all the issues stand concluded. The reliance for this proposition is placed on the judgment in case of D. Purushottama Reddy and another vs. K. Sateesh 2009 (Supplement) Bombay Cases Reporter 401. Learned counsel for respondents have urged before us that since the petitioner was not in employment since 19.12.2009, the petitioner, therefore, cannot be turned round and challenge the directions of the Tribunal for appointment of the respondent herein. 5. The Tribunal in its earlier order passed in Original Application No. 07/2009 had directed that in the event the petitioner was found to be ineligible, the applicant therein i. e. the present respondent No. 3 should be given appointment. The proceedings of the enquiry came to be challenged at the behest of the petitioner and the Tribunal directed compliance of the principles of natural justice by providing copies of the documents. 6 The petitioner was not granted continuation beyond 18.12.2009 and since 19.12.2009 the petitioner ceased to be in employment as instructor in fashion designing. This act of the respondents in not giving continuation to the petitioner had not been challenged by the petitioner at all. The petitioner chose not to participate in the proceeding before the Tribunal in respect of the Original Application No. 1056/2009, which order is impugned in the present petition. Since the Tribunal had directed that in the event of the petitioner being found ineligible, the respondent No. 3 be given appointment, the period of one year of validity of the wait list/select list would not operate. Even the Government has not filed any petition challenging the order of the Tribunal. The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court on which reliance is placed, according to us is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioner chose not to challenge her discontinuation and since the petitioner was out of employment, the Tribunal has rightly passed the order which is impugned in the present petition. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for parties and after perusing the findings recorded by the Tribunal according to us, there is no errer whatsoever in respect of reasoning of the 7 Tribunal which warrant any interference in the present petition. The present petition is accordingly summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/July 10