1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4189/2010. The State of Maharashtra and another. -: VERSUS :- Shri Premchand Ambadas Hanswar Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 09, 2010. Heard Shri Kankale, learned A.G.P. for petitioners and Shri S.G. Loney, learned Counsel for respondent. Short contention of Shri Kankale, learned A.G.P. is, directions issued by the Industrial Court to provide work to respondent as 'Wardboy' is because of its reliance upon list at Exh.51. That list is not a select list, but an internal document prepared for office purpose. It is contended that on 18.02.1993 subsequent interviews were held in which respondent also participated and by that participation he waived his right, if any, about the earlier selection process. In 1993 selection his name was not 2 recommended and thereafter he choose to file a ULP Complaint No. 44/1995. Reliance is being placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court to show that a candidate who has participated in selection process, cannot thereafter turn around and assail it. Shri Loney, learned Counsel for respondent points out that complaint was about select list at Exh.51 in which name of respondent was placed at Sr.No.1. Persons whose name appear below him in that list were appointed and respondent was not issued any such appointment order. He points out that in Writ Petition No.210/1994 this Court has considered the entitlement of one Sau. Manoramabai Mate whose name appear at Sr.No. 9 in the very same list. He is relying upon the observations by the Industrial Court in paragraph no.9 to show that several juniors whose names appear below the name of respondent in Exh.51 have filed ULP Complaints and succeeded right upto to this Court. The perusal of impugned judgment delivered by the Industrial Court reveals that it has acted upon the list at Exh.51. The said list was put to its witness - Dr. Nikam and that list at Exh.51 is considered as list at Exh.50 in Writ Petition No. 210/1994 by me while 3 delivering the judgment on 22.09.2005. In the present matter the said list at Exh.51 has been accepted to be list of selected candidates by witness Dr. Nikam, examined by petitioners. In view of his statement it is apparent that learned A.G.P. cannot contend that it was a list prepared only for office purpose and for internal use. The respondent has not relied upon 1993 interview at all and he has pointed out judgment delivered by the Industrial Court in ULP Complaint Nos. 123/1993, 917/1994 and 45/1995 in which the list at Exh.51 only has been relied upon. The position therefore appears to be that the petitioners have permitted juniors or those who were less meritorious to join and appointment order was not issued to respondent, though he was placed at Sr.No.1 in waiting list and was therefore more meritorious. The Industrial Court has rightly appreciated this position and also the earlier judgment of this Court in the matter. I do not find any jurisdictional error of perversity. As there is no reliance upon 1993 interviews at all, the judgments on which learned A.G.P. wishes to place reliance have no application as there is no challenge to 4 1993 selection. Challenge is to supersession of better rights of respondent in Exh.51. In the light of arguments advanced above, I do not find any merits in the petition. The same is, therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.