1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3677 OF 2010 Shri Narayan S/o Shankar Choudhari .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents Shri S. P. Tiwari, Advocate h/f Shri N. L. Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2010. PER COURT : . Pursuant to an advertisement which was issued for the recruitment of the post of house master prescribing the pay scale of 7500/-, the petitioner applied for the said post. According to the petitioner, the petitioner burnt mid night oil for the said and had put in lot of efforts. The efforts of the petitioner bored fruits in the selection of the petitioner as house master. The 2 petitioner was in receipt of the appointment order dated 12th January, 2010, wherein the petitioner was appointed on consolidated pay of Rs. 3500/-. Since the pay was less, the petitioner chose not to join the said post as the petitioner was already employed. 2. It appears that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of writ of mandamus for directing the respondent authorities to issue appointment order to the petitioner as a house master pursuant to the pay scale mentioned in the advertisement and also prays for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the time for joining the service of house master and for issuance of writ of mandamus to consider the earlier service rendered by the petitioner of 16 years while issuing fresh appointment order to him for the post of house master. 3. The petitioner has absolutely no legal right whatsoever. The petitioner was offered employment which the petitioner chose to refuse. Since the petitioner has chosen to refuse the offer of the respondents for employment, the petitioner cannot now by this petition pray for issuance of a writ directing the respondents 3 to issue appointment order by giving salary or the pay scale to the petitioner which was provided in the advertisement. In that light of the matter, there is no merit in the petition and the petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/June 10