1 W.P. No.8372 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.8372 of 2009 Vijaylaxmi D/o Ganpatrao Jadhav. .. Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. H.I. Pathan, Advocate, for petitioner. Shri. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.1 to 3. Shri. G.R. Ingole, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Shri. S.R. Choukidar, Advocate, for respondent No.13. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 20th DECEMBER 2011 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The Zilla Parishad Nanded issued advertisement No.1/2009 wherein 14 posts were reserved for candidates belonging to Project Affected category. The petitioner was candidate at Sr.No.9. Seven candidates were given appointment orders. Respondent No.13 - 2 W.P. No.8372 of 2009 Yadav Kalba Bodkhe was directed to be appointed on the remaining post consequent to the order passed by the Grievance Committee. 3) The petitioner's contention is that the candidate at Sr.No.8, who was above the petitioner, joined service on other post, the petitioner was the only candidate who ought to have been appointed as Shikshan Sevak. Respondent No.13 could not have been appointed to the said post. 4) Replies are filed by the respondents. 5) We find from the material placed on record and the submissions advanced that, the recruitment to the posts reserved for project affected category was undertaken prior to the judgment delivered by the Full Bench of this Court in Rajendra Pandurang Pagare v. State of Maharashtra, 2009(4) Bom.C.R. 928. The selection process is over and the candidates are already appointed. Life time of the select list has already expired. 3 W.P. No.8372 of 2009 6) In the facts of the case it would be difficult to presume that respondent No.8 could not have joined the post of Shikshan Sevak if given an opportunity. Respondent No.8 was appointed as Senior Lab Assistant by an order dated 9-10-2007 which was much earlier to the present subject selection process. Considering these aspects of the matter it would not be reasonable to reopen the entire issue now. 7) There is no merit in the petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl