1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2665 of 1998 Dilip s/o. Devilal Jaiswal Age 31 years, Occ. Service R/o. N-9, K-18/5, Pawan Nagar, HUDCO, Aurangabad. Petitioner Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra 2] The Department of Cooperation, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3] The Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 4] The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra State, Central Building, Pune-1. 5] The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad. Respondents Mr. Vijay Jagtap,Advocate holding for Mr V.D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2 CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR & S.S. SHINDE,JJ. DATE : 2nd May, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] : 1] By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 20/3/1998 in Original Application No. 331/1997, by which the Tribunal has dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner summarily. 2] The petitioner was appointed to the post of Junior Clerk in the Cooperation Department in the category of `Nominee of Freedom Fighter'. The petitioner was given preferential treatment for such appointment as he belongs to the said category. The petitioner having accepted the said appointment, thereafter tried to get the appointment in the said category as a Cooperative Officer, Grade -I. The Tribunal found that the petitioner having accepted the appointment as a freedom fighter's nominee, as a junior clerk, without any objection, now, cannot ask for appointment as a Cooperative Officer Grade-I. 3] In our view no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal, as it is not in dispute that the petitioner had accepted the appointment as a Junior Clerk, without any 3 grievance, in the category of nominee of freedom fighter. As such, the petitioner cannot ask for fresh a fresh appointment as Cooperative Officer Grade-I, simply because he might be qualified for the said post. 4] The Tribunal has given cogent and sound reasons in para.5 and 6 of the impugned order. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. In the circumstances, there shall be no orders as to costs. [S.S. SHINDE,J] [P.B. MAJMUDAR,J.] grt/wp