1 WP 1422/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1422 OF 2010 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mrs. Lata Patne for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Pakale i/b Mr. Kirankumar Phakhade for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. S.N. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent nos.5, 6 and 8. Mr. Avinash Belge for respondent no.7. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 17TH SEPTEMBER 2010 P.C. : 1. We have heard Mrs. Patne, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is seeking to challenge the appointment of respondent no.7 for the post of “Reader” in the subject of “Kayachikitsa” and 2 WP 1422/10 further prays for directions for conversion of 2 posts of Lecturer into Reader instead of conversion of one post of Lecturer. So far as the second relief is concerned, the same cannot be a subject matter of adjudication in this writ petition. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.3 did not possess the requisite experience of 5 years for the post of Reader. Admittedly, the petitioner was also one of the candidates for the said post and he appeared for the interview on 5th April 2008 before the Selection Committee. He was not selected. The petitioner now states that the clause of counting the experience as on the date of the advertisement is illegal and, therefore, if this clause is not taken into consideration, on the date of the advertisement respondent no.7 did not possess the requisite experience of 5 years. The petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the advertisement clause after he has 3 WP 1422/10 gone through the selection process. The petitioner has brought on record the certificates pertaining to the experience of respondent no.7 and the said respondent was for the first time appointed as a Lecturer on 17th March 2003. Thus on the date of the interview, i.e. on 5th April 2008, he had completed the experience of 5 years as required by the post of Reader. Hence, the challenge to the appointment of respondent no.7 on the ground that he was not qualified is unsustainable. No other issue is required to be considered in this writ petition. 5. The writ petition is rejected. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)