FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | WRIT PETITION NO.3425/2007 Shri A.S.Bayas,Adv.for petitioners. Shri K.B.Choudhari,AGP for State. Shri H.M.Karwa,Adv.for R.2 & 3. .... CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 3rd March, 2010. 1] By this petition, the petitioners are seeking directions against the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company, to appoint them on the basis of the select list/merit list prepared in the year 1999 i.e. 11 years before. 2] According to the petitioners, in accordance with policy decision of the State of Maharashtra, the then Maharashtra State Electricity Board had decided to take up the recruitment drive with a view to fill in the backlog in the reserved posts. The petitioners had competed in the selection process and their names are found in the merit list at different places. Some candidates were issued appointment orders, however, on account of imposition of ban on recruitment, the petitioners were not issued appointment orders. The ban was lifted in the year 2003 and subsequent to that the M.S.E.B. came to be bifercated into a different companies. The respondent in this petition is the Distribution Company. 3] The petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent on 3 grounds. Firstly that the eligibility for appointment of a candidate to the post of Line- Helper has undergone a change on account of issuance of administrative circular no.12 on 13/12/2005. It is pointed out that under the said circular, a candidate is required to possess the qualification of I.T.I. (Electrician) from recognized institution. It is undisputed that none of the present petitioners are possessed of the said qualification. The next ground is that there are no vacancies in existence with the Electricity Distribution Board and thirdly and lastly, it is submitted that the list has lapsed and cannot be operated after a period of 11 years. 4] We have no iota of doubt that if the petitioners are claiming appointments as of now, they need to satisfy the elegibility criteria presently in operation, when they are to be appointed. The elegiblity criteria cannot be diluted for accommodating the candidates who were selected way back in 1999, however, not appointed. There is no vested right in a candidate, who is selected in a process of selection. The learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.5946/06 on 1/7/2009, to contend that in similar set of facts, the Court has dismissed identical petition. For the reason that the petitioners are not today eligible for appointment, no writ of mandamus can be issued commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioners. 5] Without going into other questions raised in the petition, we dismiss this petition summarily. [N.D.DESHPANDE] [A.P.DESHPANDE] JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp3425-07