1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8149 of 2010. Ganesh S/o. Sheshrao Puranwar Age 28 years, Occ. Nil R/o. Eklara, Tq. Mukhed District Nanded. Petitioner Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra through Secretary Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32. 2] The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Beed. 3] Member/Secretary District Selection Committee and Dy. Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Beed. District Beed. Respondents Mr. B.S. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner Mr. Mr. N,L Jadhav, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for the respondent No.1. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ.. DATE : 22nd OCTOBER, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER B.R. GAVAI,J.] : 1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2] By way of present petition,the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner on the post of contractual Gram Sevak reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category. The petitioner had applied for the said post in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner has passed the written as well as oral examination. In the meantime, a proposal for verification of the caste claim of the petitioner was sent to the respondent No.2 committee. There was a delay on the part of the respondent NO.2 Committee in deciding the caste claim of the petitioner. The committee decided the caste claim of the petitioner by order dated 6th February, 2007. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation for appointment. The same was not considered. Hence, the present petition. 3] Shri Jadhav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that since, by the time the proposal of the petitioner regarding validity of his claim was considered favourably by the respondent scrutiny committee, the period for wait List had already lapsed and as such, the petitioner was not entitled for appointment. 4] It can be seen that the delay on the part of the respondent scrutiny committee in not deciding the claim of the petitioner cannot be attributed to the petitioner . The petitioner cannot be denied appointment on the ground which was beyond his control. 5] The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are, therefore, directed to 3 forthwith appoint the petitioner as Contractual Gram Sevak, in case the vacancy is available and in the event, the vacancy is not available as on today, on the immediate next available vacancy, against a quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs. [A.A. SAYED,J] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp