1 WP 6131.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6131 OF 2010 Manikrao S/o Shantaram Sonwane .... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. B.R.Kedar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K.Kadam, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. N.S.Choudhari, Advocate for respondent no. 6. Mr. R.V.Ghuge, Advocate for respondent no. 7. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 01/03/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks direction against respondent no. 3 to allow the petitioner to join on the post of Junior Technician at Nasik as per final selection list dated 15/6/2010, so also, seeks writ of mandamus against respondent nos. 4 and 6 to issue final national trade certificate in favour of the petitioner. 2 WP 6131.2010 3. Mr. Kedar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 3 published advertisement for 18 posts of Junior Technician for filling in the back-log of Scheduled Caste project affected persons. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Technician. The petitioner was selected. The petitioner was not allowed to join on the ground that he is not having national trade certificate. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner possesses provisional certificate issued by the National Council for Vocational Training and there was no impediment for the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Junior Technician. According to the learned counsel, the action of the respondents is illegal. The petitioner complies with all the conditions. 4. Mr. R.V.Ghuge, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that the case of the petitioner can not be considered in view of the fact that the selection process is over. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioner vide his letter dated 24/6/2010 had admitted that he does not have the necessary certificate as is required and had stated that he would submit the same on 26/6/2010 and if he is not in a position to submit the same, his appointment be cancelled and further vide letter dated 28/6/2010, the petitioner took away all his original documents and accepted the fact that he can not be appointed. 3 WP 6131.2010 5. We have heard the learned counsels. Vide letter dated 28/6/2010, the petitioner unequivocally withdrew himself from the selection process. Vide the said letter, he had requested for return of all the original documents on account of the fact that he can not be appointed on the post of Junior Technician. The selection process is also complete. The petitioner, in such circumstances, can not claim any right of being appointed on the said post. The petitioner on his own volition withdrew himself from the selection process. The petitioner could not produce the relevant certificate as per the advertisement. 6. In light of the above conspectus of the facts, the petitioner has no case on merits and the Writ Petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] knp/WP 6131.2010