1711wp4711.09.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4711 OF 2009 SURESH PARASRAM NANHE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & 5 OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr. D. A. Sonwane, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. D. Kothar, A. G. P. for respondents No. 1 to 5. CORAM: D. D. SINHA & F. M. REIS, JJ. DATED : 17th NOVEMBER, 2009. Heard. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of fresh selection process conducted by respondent No. 2 for filling up the post of Peon at District Court, Gadchiroli. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on earlier occasion the advertisement was published on 15/10/2007 inviting applications to fill up the post of Peon, pursuant to which the selection process was undertaken. However, the petitioner submitted complaint in respect of selection process to the Government. On verification, the Government thought it fit to cancel the said selection process, and therefore, fresh selection process was undertaken by respondent No. 2. 1711wp4711.09.odt 2/3 Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while undertaking the fresh selection process, respondent No. 2 has not given fresh advertisement and called the candidates who had applied pursuant to the earlier advertisement dated 15/10/2007, and therefore, the fresh selection process undertaken by respondent No.2 is also invalid, bad in law and therefore, cannot be sustained in law. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has no grievance about the earlier advertisement dated 15/10/2007 that it was not given in the newspaper which did not have wider circulation in the area nor there was any grievance of the petitioner that the newspaper in which the said advertisement was given had no circulation at all, and therefore, the candidates from the region could not apply. In absence of grievance in this regard, we are of the view that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner if the candidates were called for the second selection process on the basis of advertisement dated 15/10/2007. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for showing indulgence in the present writ petition. 1711wp4711.09.odt 3/3 So far as the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlor & others vs. State of Punjab & others reported in (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases – 356 is concerned, the Apex Court has faced with entirely different situation where, if the fraud in the selection process is established, the State should not have upheld the selection. In the instant case, on the earlier occasion, in view of the complaint, the State Government in fact has cancelled the selection, and therefore, fresh selection process is initiated. Hence, we are afraid that the decision of the Apex Court does further the case of the petitioner. Hence writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE wwl