1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2753 OF 2001 Shri Vishnupant Laxman Putale. ... Petitioner. Versus The Secretary & Deputy Comissioner, (General Admn.), Pune Division,Pune & Ors. .... Respondents. Mr. S. G. Kudle for the Petitioner. Mr. C. R. Sonawane, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : 9TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the papers as also the counter affidavit. 2. This writ petition has been filed in this Court in the year 2001. Normally, the petitioner should have gone to the Administrative Tribunal. But this Court has entertained the petition and even passed an interim order in the year 2001. Hence, it will not be appropriate to ask the petitioner to go to the Administrative Tribunal after 8 years. 3. It is an admitted case of even the respondents that in response to the 2 advertisement for selection of 8 stenographers the petitioner was number one in the merit. Although he belonged to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste, he was selected in open category and was number one in merits. Thereafter, he was deputed to the office of the Joint Director, Technical Education. On scrutiny of his certificate, the Joint Director, Technical Education found that the petitioner was a stenographer in Marathi language and not in English language and he needed a Marathi stenographer. 4 Posts of Marathi stenographers and 4 posts of English stenographers were specifically advertised and 8 persons were selected. The petitioner had applied against the post of stenographer in English language and he was selected. Therefore, he cannot be faulted and his appointment also cannot be, accordingly, faulted. If, the post was not available with the Joint Director, Technical Education, the petitioner should have been posted somewhere else. 4. This Court has already protected the petitioner by issuing interim direction when the writ petition was filed. Therefore, we make this direction given earlier absolute as no further orders are necessary to be passed. 5. The petitioner, however, contends that his seniority has not been fixed and other benefits have not been given. If he has any grievance in that behalf, he has liberty to take recourse to the remedy available to him in law. 6. In view of the above, interim order passed earlier by this Court is confirmed. Rule made absolute, accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of. 3 7. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)