1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY+ NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3852 of 2010 [Rajendra Maroti Chaudhary & others Vs. The District Selection Committee & others] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. G.N. Khanzode, Adv., for the petitioners. Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Addl. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 1 and 4. Mr. J.S. Mokadam, Adv., for respondent nos. 2 and 3. ----- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 02nd September, 2011. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. Khanzode for the petitioners, learned Addl. Govt. Pleader Mrs. Dangre for respondent nos. 1 and 4 and learned Adv. Mr. Mokadam for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. Contention is that though the petitioners have not been allowed to continue on contract basis as Health Attendants, the other similarly situated persons have been allowed to work even after expiry of their tenure and after reaching the age of thirty-five years. Attention is invited to Advertisement dated 17th July, 2010 and the Select List prepared in pursuance thereof after holding interviews on 27th July, 2010. Instances of persons whose names appear at Sr. Nos. 13, 16, 18, 19, 33 2 etc., are also pressed into service to substantiate the contention. 3. Learned Addl. Govt. Pleader and Adv. Mr. J.S. Mokadam support the action, as stated. They point out that petitioners were given work on contract basis in response to advertisement dated 7th October, 2008, and thereafter a fresh advertisement was issued on 17th July, 2010. As per that advertisement, the age norm was to be satisfied by 31th July, 2010. All persons selected satisfied that norm. It is further pointed out that after expiry of tenure of those persons, as the selected candidates from Regional Subordinate Service Selection Board have still not become available, those persons have been continued. 4. Facts show that persons in relation to whom discrimination is claimed have been appointed in response to advertisement dated 17th July, 2010. That advertisement specifically mentions 31st July, 2010 as the date by which the age requirement was to be satisfied. We have perused the names of persons mentioned supra in that list and we find that all of them were below thirty-five years of their age on 31st July, 2010. 5. The petitioners were selected in response to earlier advertisement published in 2008, and it appears that as they did not fulfill the age criteria, they could not be selected in pursuance of later advertisement 3 dated 17th July, 2010. The petitioners have/had no right to posts. Employer has continued persons selected in response to the advertisement dated 17th July, 2010 on contract basis, as regularly selected candidates have yet not become available. This act of employer does not confer any right upon the petitioners. No case is made out for warranting interference. Petition is dismissed. No costs. Judge Judge |Hedau|