1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2609 OF 2001 Prabhakar s/o Uddhavrao Jadhav, Age 34 years, Occu.Agril. & Police Patil, r/o Raimoha, Taluka Patoda, Presently Shirur, Dist.Beed .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Bhagwan s/o Sudamdeo Sanap, Age 31 years, Occu.Agril., R/o Raimoha, Taluka Patoda, Presently Shirur, District Beed 2. The State of Maharashtra 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Beed ..RESPONDENTS Mr.N.L.Jadhav, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Tambe, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents 2 and 3 Mr.R.T.Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent No.1 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 16 th June 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner takes exception to the order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 24.4.2001 allowing the original application filed by the respondent No.1 herein and quashing and setting aside the appointment of the petitioner as a Police Patil and directing the 2 respondents to conduct the process of appointment afresh, after fixing appropriate parameters and holding competitive test. We may add at this stage that in the light of the subsequent events the Government held a written test and has also fixed parameters in respect of the appointment of persons to the post of Police Patil. 2. It appears that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that from the cryptic reply which was filed by the Government, the Government failed to establish as to what were the parameters applied for selection of the candidate for the post of Police Patil. The cryptic reply of the Government also did not disclose that except the petitioner herein no other candidate was qualified or was eligible for the post of Police Patil. The Tribunal further concluded that mere assertion on the part of the Government that the petitioner herein was the most suitable candidate could not be accepted in the absence of any material to justify the same. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has made available to us the proceedings in respect of the selection of the petitioner and the respondent No.1. It appears that both, the petitioner and the respondent No.1 were graded as B++. In the column relating to personality the petitioner was judged to be excellent while the respondent No.1 was judged to be good. 3 3. Rule came to be issued in this petition and ad interim relief came to be granted to the petitioner in terms of prayer clause (D). Prayer clause (D) to the petition reads that pending the hearing and final disposal of the writ petition, the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal be stayed. As a result of Rule and the interim relief, the petitioner has continued to be in employment as a Police Patil and has enjoyed the full term of five years for which the petitioner had been appointed. 4. The appointment of the petitioner was for a period of five years which was objected to by the respondent No.1 herein. The petitioner came to be appointed for the period of five years w.e.f. 24.3.1998 up to 23.3.2003. As pointed out by us above, on account of the interim stay granted by this Court the petitioner has enjoyed the full term of his appointment. The period of appointment of the petitioner with which we are concerned was for a period of five years i.e. which was subject matter of challenge before the Administrative Tribunal. The aforesaid period has come to an end. It appears that the petitioner has been continued subsequently and the appointment of the petitioner has been extended upto 2013. In our opinion the challenge to the order of the Tribunal has been rendered infructuous in the light of the fact that the period for which the petitioner had been appointed has already come to an end. 4 Merely because the extension has been granted to the petitioner that would not intake any light in this otherwise infructuous petition. 5. Mr.Jadhav, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the Tribunal was in error in allowing the original application and quashing and setting aside the appointment of the petitioner. According to Mr.Jadhav, learned Counsel for the petitioner in the absence of any averments regarding mala fides and the fact that the petitioner was judged to be excellent as compared to the respondent No.1 who was judged to be good, the appointment of the petitioner could not be faulted with. Mr.Jadhav, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.C.Mylarappa alias Dr.Chikkamylarappa Vs. Dr.R.Venkatasubbaiah and ors. (2008) 14 SCC 306 and (2009) 2 SLR 129. 6. In our opinion the aforesaid judgment is not applicable presently in the light of the fact that the relief which the petitioner has sought for i.e. challenge to the order of the Tribunal has become infructuous in the light of the fact that the period for which the petitioner was employed has come to an end. Even if the petition has to be dismissed on merit the clock cannot be put back and the respondent No.1 herein can neither be appointed 5 nor can the directions of the Tribunal be observed as the period for which the appointment was made has come to an end. 7. In that light of the matter, therefore, we find that since the petition has been rendered infructuous, we dismiss the petition as infructuous. We hasten to add that the dismissal of this petition would not have any effect upon the extension which has been granted to the petitioner as the extensions have been granted to the petitioner not under orders of this Court but have been granted by the authorities on their own. 8. Petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/2609.01wp)