bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7573 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 7573 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 7573 OF 2007 Ulhas Vittal Kadu ... Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for the petitioner. Mr.P.M.Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.N.G.Helekar for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr.Mandar Limaye for respondent No.5. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND J.N.PATEL AND J.N.PATEL AND SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. DATED: DATED: DATED: 22ND FEBRUARY, 2008. 22ND FEBRUARY, 2008. 22ND FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that respondent institution advertised for the post of Shikshan Sewak against a vacancy for the Assistant Teacher to which the petitioner applied but was not selected. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the person who has been appointed as Shikshan Sewak is not eligible to be so appointed and that in all there were three 2 candidates who responded to the advertisement including the petitioner but the petitioner was not selected. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of direction to the respondent institution that they should consider him for appointment against the post of Assistant Teacher which is lying vacant. 4. In our view, such a relief cannot be granted to the petitioner even accepting that the respondent institution has appointed someone as Shikshan Sewak inspite of the fact that no such vacancy exists. The respondent institution would suffer for it. The question whether the person who was appointed was qualified or not does not arise for consideration as according to the petitioner himself there is no such post available. 5. We also cannot direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for being appointed as a Assistant Teacher and, therefore, we find no merits in the petition. The same is dismissed. (J.N. (J.N. (J.N. PATEL, J.) PATEL, J.) PATEL, J.) 3 (SMT.NISHITA (SMT.NISHITA (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) MHATRE, J.) MHATRE, J.)