1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 4334 of 2008. [Anand S/o Gulabrao Bagal] v. [The State of Maharashtra and others] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri Tiwari Advocate H/F Shri AS Kilor, Advocate for petitioner. Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 17th NOVEMBER, 2008. Heard Learned Advocate for the petitioner whose challenge is to the appointment of Respondent No.7 in the post of Peon against a vacancy reserved for physically challenged persons under Respondent No.3 Municipal Council. The Government of Maharashtra, Urban Development Department, issued a resolution on 13-5-2007 allowing the Municipal Councils to fill in, in all 128 posts of Class-III and Class-IOV reserved for physically challenged persons and pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in Public Interest Litigation Petition No.139 of 2 2006. Consequently, the Directorate of Municipal Administration, Government of Maharashtra also issued the orders on the same date and Respondent No.3 Municipal Council passed a Resolution dated 22-10-2007 to fill in one post of peon from amongst the physically challenged persons. A proclamation was issued and published in some of the local news papers, in response to which, the petitioner and some other candidates also applied. But the proclamation was published on 24-10- 2007, and the last date to receive the application was 1-11-2007. The list of candidates to appear for oral interview was to be published on 8-11-2007, and the interviews were scheduled on 15-11-2007 in between 11 a.m., to 2 p.m., and on the same date, the selection list was to be published. It was also made clear that the candidates applying for the said post must submit a certificate indicating that the disability was 40% or more. The petitioner underwent the selection process, but was not selected and the Respondent No.7 was appointed on 27-11-2008. Prior to the said date, second round of oral 3 interview was held on 23-11-2007, and the Municipal Council passed a Resolution on 26-11-2007 approving the appointment of Respondent No.7. We have perused the G. R. dated 30-5-2007, and it clearly states that the programme for selection given therein is only to advisory or by way of guidance to the Municipal Councils. In any case, if it was a post of a clerk i.e. Class-III, then one may agree that the written test was necessary. The petitioner concedes that every candidate underwent a uniform selection test namely oral interviews on 15-11-2007 and 23-11-2007. The Government Resolution dated 30-5-2007 also indicates that such selection shall be subject to the approval to be granted by the District Collector. Admittedly, the petitioner never approached the Collector, Amravati before he filed this petition, and the petition has been filed on 5-9-2008 and the objections were removed on 18-9-2008. Thus, for about 11 months, the petitioner had kept quite. The petition thus, suffers from inordinate delay and latches. In addition, once the petitioner had gone through the 4 selection process, it is not permissible for the petitioner to impugned the very same selection process on any grounds. Hence, the petition fails at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected. JUDGE JUDGE //Muley//.