( 1 ) wp7021.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7021 OF 2010 Vandana d/o. Prahlad Baglane .. Petitioner Age. 25 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Kakadhira, Tq. & Dist. Beed. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed. 3. The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed. 4. Sangeeta d/o. Sarjerao Ugale, Age. 25 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Kakadhira, Tq. & Dist. Beed. Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State. Mr. S.S. Dambe, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Mr. S.A. Nagarsoge, Advocate for respondent No. 4. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 28.01.2011 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by ( 2 ) wp7021.10 consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties and learned A.G.P. for the respondent/State. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges part of the order dated 03.11.2009 rendered by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in proceedings No. 2008/Visha/Kaksh-2/ZPVP/CR-11. By the impugned order the appointment of respondent No.4 Smt. Sunita @ Sangeeta was cancelled. At the same time, direction was given to commence afresh recruitment process for filling up posts of Mini Anganwadi Sevika. The petitioner is aggrieved by the second part of the impugned order regarding direction to commence afresh recruitment process. 3. The petitioner’s contention is, she had duly participated in the recruitment process. She was at Sr. No.1 in the wait-list and therefore there was no need to direct afresh recruitment process and in view of the communication issued by the Commissioner of Integrated Child Welfare and Development Scheme on 30th August, 2006. The petitioner’s contention is that once it was found that the appointment of ( 3 ) wp7021.10 respondent No.4 was liable to be cancelled due to fraud committed while obtaining such appointment, the resultant process could be continued to appoint her, because she was the next available candidate on the wait-list. It is further contended that the select list is still available and could not have been abrogated unless it lapses due to any valid reason. 4. Heard learned Counsels for the parties and learned A.G.P. 5. It is pertinent to notice that no reply affidavit is filed by respondent No.1. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have no objection to appoint the petitioner if such directions are given by the Court and it was only because of the impugned order that afresh selection process was required to be undertaken. Mr. S.A. Nagarsoge appearing for respondent No.4, however, submits that the petitioner has no inherent right to get appointment only because her name appears in the select-list. He seeks to rely on certain ( 4 ) wp7021.10 observations in “Union of India and Ors. V/s. S. Vinodh Kumar & Ors.,” [2008(1)Mh.L.J.358]. The Apex Court observed that candidates applying and appearing in response to the advertisement for competitive examination have no vested right for appointment, nor selected candidates have such legal right. There cannot be any duelty about the legal principle settled by the Apex Court in the context of the status of a person whose name appears in the select list. Such a person has no vested right as such. The selected candidate cannot be claimed appointment on the post as a matter of right, only on the ground of his or her name appears in the select list. The right of such person would, however, depend upon nature of the select list. If select list is drawn with a view to make available a right to the candidates for such appointment if for certain reason the vacancy arises and is required to be immediately filled up then the next candidate can claim appointment unless he is found to be ineligible. 6. The select list was not scrapped by any valid order. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 never declared the select list ( 5 ) wp7021.10 as invalid or inoperative. Respondent No.4 has no locus standi to object appointment of the petitioner. Respondent No.4 did produce dubious desertion certificate in order to show that she was deserted by the husband and was therefore eligible for the appointment as Mini Anganwadi Sevika. It was found after enquiry that she was residing with her husband and as such was ineligible for such appointment. Once it is found that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were and are willing to accommodate the petitioner, there is no necessity to undertake afresh recruitment process. The communication issued by the competent authority i.e. the Commissioner of the Integrated Child Development and Welfare Scheme purports to show that there will be no need to commence afresh recruitment process, where such a wait-list is available, in case it would be found that the recruitment of any candidate was invalid. The learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, did not consider such communication of the competent authority while passing the impugned order. In this view of the matter, the direction of holding such recruitment process afresh therefore is improper and unsustainable in the eye of law. ( 6 ) wp7021.10 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside to the extent of second part i.e. commencing of the fresh recruitment process. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may consider the claim of the petitioner and if it is found that she is entitled for the appointment of Mini Anganwadi Sevika on merits, then such appointment order may be issued in her favour. The respondent No.4 may file any objection, if she wants to raise any legal objection for such appointment, before the competent authority. The process shall be completed within a period of one month and necessary orders may be issued by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as per the provisions of the scheme. 8. The petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2011/JAN11/wp7021.10