1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3039 OF 2010 Vinod s/o Dattarao Zade ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr V.A. Dhakne, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 & 2; Mr A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 5th August, 2010 PER COURT : This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing respondent no.3 to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner on the post of contractual Gramsevak from open category under the District Services of Zilla Parishad, pursuant to the select list dated 14.7.2009 published by the District Selection Committee. The petitioner also prays for quashing and setting aside the advertisement dated 29.3.2010 published by the respondents, to the extent of one post of contractual Gramsevak from the category of Ex-serviceman. 2 2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly be stated thus :- An advertisement came to be issued inviting applications for nine posts of contractual Gramsevak, out of which three posts were reserved for women, while one post each was reserved for Ex-serviceman and sports person and four posts were reserved for general category candidates. The petitioner obviously competed in respect of the four posts which were reserved for general category candidates. It appears that the post of Ex-serviceman was not filled on account of the fact that no candidate from that category was available. As per the foot note to the advertisement that in the event candidate from that specific category was not available, the posts from that particular category would be filled in. The post of Ex-serviceman was for candidates belonging to the open category with the reservation of Ex-serviceman. Accordingly a select list came to be prepared and the name of the petitioner appeared on the said select list at sr.no.4. The select list was, therefore, prepared on the basis of merit and the petitioner was shown to have scored 144.318 marks. The selection of the petitioner was against the post which was reserved for Ex-serviceman (open). It appears that a no objection certificate came to be obtained from the Deputy Director of Social Welfare Department, which was a mandatory requirement. It further appears that since the petitioner was not issued with any appointment order and a subsequent advertisement came to be issued, the petitioner has filed the present 3 petition. 3. By virtue of an interim order passed on 4th May, 2010, this Court directed the third respondent not to issue any appointment order in respect of the post which was reserved for Ex-serviceman. Incidentally, we may state that in the subsequent advertisement the post of Ex- serviceman was not available for open category candidates. 4. Be that as it may, since a fresh advertisement was issued and the petitioner was not issued with the appointment order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. Mr Dhakne, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that since the petitioner came to be selected and his name came to be displayed in the select list and as the Deputy Director of Social Welfare Department had issued no objection certificate in respect of appointment of the petitioner on the post which was reserved for Ex-serviceman, the petitioner ought to have been issued the appointment order. Countering the aforesaid submission, Shri A.N. Nagargoje, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 has urged before us that after obtaining the no objection from the Deputy Director of Social Welfare Department, as per the prevailing Government Resolutions and the policy of the Government, the respondent no.3 referred the proposal to the Government for according sanction for de-reservation of the post. Since no favourable orders were received from the Government in respect of the proposal submitted by respondent no.3, respondent no.3 4 has issued an advertisement. It is also urged before us that in the event the aforesaid post is treated as being available for open category candidates, a fresh advertisement would be required to be issued in order to ensure that all candidates from the open category are allowed to compete for the said post. 5. The aforesaid Government Resolution does contemplate the authority for obtaining sanction from the Government for de-reservation of the post. Merely on the strength of a no objection from the Deputy Director of Social Welfare Department, no appointment order could have been issued. In any event, a candidate whose name appears in the select list has no legally enforceable right to claim to be appointed. A reference in this behalf may usefully be made to S. Renuka & ors. vs. State of A.P. & anr., (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 195 and also to the judgment of Supreme Court in K.H. Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala & ors., 2006 AIR SCW 3136. 6. As pointed out by us above, since no sanction from the Government was received, the respondent no.3 has issued a fresh advertisement. Since the post of an Ex-serviceman is not available for the open category candidate, the petitioner could not submit his application. We have examined the conduct of respondent no.3 for trying to determine if the issuance of fresh advertisement is tainted with malafides. We are unable to decipher any allegations on the part of the 5 respondent no.3 in issuing the fresh advertisement. Obviously, since no sanction for de-reservation was received from the Government, the respondent no.3 had no other option but to issue a fresh advertisement. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us there is no merit in the petition. The petitioner has no legally enforceable right to claim to be appointed merely on the strength of his name appearing in the select list. 7. In the result, this writ petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/wp3039.10