1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.3205/2007 (Pundlik B. Naik and anr .vs. State of Mah. And ors. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders ======================================= Mr. C.V. Jagdale, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, AGP for Respondents no.1 & 2. Mr. Shaikh Majid, Advocate for Respondent no.3. Mr. M.I. Dhatrak , Advocate for Respondent no.4. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE &, PRASANNA. B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 12, 2008 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. On 20.05.2006 respondent no.2 published an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Health Workers (Males) and Health Workers (Females). There were 14 posts for males and 12 posts for females. Out of 14 posts for males, 11 were open and 3 were reserved. The petitioners who had experience of work in that respect, applied for the said post in pursuance of the advertisement. They appeared for the written test held on 16.07.2006 and passed the written test. 27 persons including the petitioners were called for the personal interview. Accordingly the petitioners appeared for the personal interview. On 18.07.2006 a select list of 14 candidates was published. It 2 included 11 posts belonging to open category and 3 posts belonging to reserved category. It seems that respondent no.4 made a representation for inclusion of his name in the select list as freedom fighter's nominee. Accordingly his name was included. The said action of respondent no.2 has been challenged by the petitioners. 3. The advertisement at Annexure I shows that no post was reserved for the category of freedom fighter's nominee. Despite this, respondent no.4 was selected from that category and was appointed. However, even if the appointment of respondent no.4 is held to be illegal, we are at a loss to understand as to how the petitioners would be benefitted as they belong to open category. Thus we find that the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the select list particularly the selection of respondent no.4. There is no substance in the petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE halwai