1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1831 OF 2010 Molasahab Dawal Shaikh & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.V.S.Deokar for Petitioners. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. ...... CORAM:­ A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED:­ MARCH 15, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners were selected during the selection process of year 2008. Their names were included in the wait list. The fact that their names were included in the wait list does not enure any right so as to ask for any direction against the employer to appoint them against the available vacancies which arose during the period when the wait list was valid till December 2009. It is not the case of the Petitioners that the impugned advertisement has been issued before the said wait list lapsed. 2 3. In our opinion, no case has been made out by the Petitioners for interfering in exercise of writ jurisdiction so as to quash and set aside the advertisement dated 5th February 2010 inviting applications for appointment against 99 vacant posts. The argument of the Petitioners is that following the Government Policy dated 20th November 2009, other Zilla Parishads have appointed candidates from the wait list against the available vacant posts even after the cut­off date when the wait list had lapsed. Our attention is invited to the communication dated 20th November 2009 at Exhibit H collectively which is issued under the signature of Under Secretary, Government of Maharashtra addressed to all the Chief Executive Officers of the concerned Zilla Parishads. In our opinion, that does not take the matter any further. For, it is not in the nature of direction issued by the State to all the Zilla Parishads that they are bound to exhaust the wait list as and when the post becomes vacant or to fill in the available vacant posts. Moreover, the fact that other Zilla Parishads have followed the recommendation of the State Government of appointing candidates from the wait list against the vacant posts even after the cut­off date when the wait list had lapsed, cannot be the basis to issue direction to the Respondent Zilla Parishad who has not acted upon the said 3 recommendation of the State Government but has chosen to allow the wait list to be lapsed and instead invited fresh applications to fill in the 99 posts. Accordingly, no interference is warranted. Dismissed. 4. Needless to observe that dismissal of this Petition shall not preclude the Petitioners to apply against the advertisement dated 5th February 2010, if so advised. Their applications will be considered along with other eligible candidates on its own merits. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)