1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5586 OF 2008 Vinod S/o Bhaskarrao Kulkarni, Age : 30 Years, Occu. : Labour, R/o Sarafa Line, Beed, Taluka and Dist. Beed. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. Through Deputy Commissioner, (Supply Aurangabad. 2. The Collector, Beed, District Beed. 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. .. .. Respondents Smt. M. A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. V. A. Shinde, A. G.P. for Respondents/State. CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT RESERVED : 08.02.2010 DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 03.03.2010 2 JUDGMENT [ PER N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard both the parties with consent, finally at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioner by this petition, seeks to challenge the order dated 30.11.2005 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad in Original Application No. 556/2002 and to issue appropriate writ or direction to the respondent No. 2 to consider and decide his representation dated 20.05.2008 for the post of Class III and Class IV cadre. 4. The petitioner claims to be a nominee of freedom fighter for his claim in the public employment. Earlier, the petitioner had approached Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for employment in the office of State Excise Department, Beed, seeking direction to select/appoint him within a stipulated time frame, in the light of the observations of the Tribunal in the matter of public employment to the nominees of freedom fighter. 3 However, the Tribunal was not inclined to give such direction, to quote, "We are afraid no court/Tribunal can give a direction to the selecting/appointing authority to select/appoint a particular candidate. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, even a candidate on the select panel has no indefeasible and/or enforceable right to appointment (please see State of Punjab Vs. Raghabir Chand Sharma reported in 2001 AIR SCW 4337)." 5. Perused the impugned order. It has taken into consideration the relevant government resolution and submissions of the petitioner's counsel and observed that applicant belonged to the category of nominees of freedom fighter and, therefore, certain concession in the matter of public employment had been spelt out in terms of the government resolutions/government circulars referring to G.A.D. circular dated 30.01.2004 is holding the field. It is further observed that the petitioner can legitimately expect as and when competitive 4 selection process takes place at the level of respondent No. 3/Superintendent State Excise, in near future, if he succeeds on the basis of performance/merit consequent further action ought to follow by declaration to said in time frame for the aforesaid purpose. With these observations his original application mentioned above came to be disposed of. 6. The petitioner, therefore, filed the instant petition against the present respondents for getting employment as he was not been considered for any appointment, so far and he is kept out of service. He quoted some earlier instances of the year 1992, 1994, 1998 when the authorities did not consider his candidature as nominee of freedom fighter for the post of talathi or similar post. By an amendment, it is also pointed out that the respondent authorities had given appointment to other persons on the post of peon and talathi as direct appointment, those who were junior to him amongst nominees of freedom fighters without preparing seniority list of the nominees of the freedom fighter and this illegality he could notice on 07.07.2008. 7. The petition is focused on the advertisement dated 5 30.11.2007published by the respondent No. 2 inviting applications for filling certain posts of clerk, typist and peon and, therefore, he again made application to the respondent No. 2 on 18.12.2007, for giving appointment as clerk or peon as nominee of the freedom fighter. He waited and waited. He again made an application on 07.04.2008 and he was assured by the respondent No. 2 that petitioner's case will be considered as and when requisition is received. 08. On behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 reply on affidavit came to be filed. The copy of the advertisement dated 30.11.2007 duly published is also made available on record for perusal. It is categorically stated that the petitioner asked for direct appointment as nominee of freedom fighter which cannot be considered as per the directions of Government Circular dated 25.10.2005 and the guide lines of recruitment issued therein. It is further stated that the petitioner's Original Application No. 556/2002 came to be disposed of by an order dated 20.12.2005 by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad with direction to the respondents that the pendency of the petition shall not come in the way, in the event of petitioner turned case 6 for being sponsored in response to requisition that would be received from the respondent or the appointing authorities from the category of nominee of freedom fighter. 09. During the course of hearing certain communications came to be filed on record dated 05.02.2010 pertaining to alleged candidature of the petitioner referring to the said advertisement. It is informed that there were no vacant posts in the open category for filling the post of clerk in the year 2007-2008 and also not available at present. It is also pointed out that they did not receive the application of the petitioner in prescribed form in response to both the advertisements and there is no denial or refusal of petitioner's claim in the matter of public employment as alleged and urged to dismiss the petition. 10. It is thus, seen that the petitioner could not satisfy that he tendered regular application in response to the said advertisement. In writ petition no disputed question of fact would be entertained. The earlier representation made to the Collector seeking employment cannot be considered as a formality required for seeking public employment. As there are certain formalities 7 which are required to be fulfilled for the public employment and it is applicable to the nominees of the freedom fighter also. 11. Thus, no case is made out by the petitioner. The petition deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ A. P. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Feb. 2010