1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MCA (REVIEW) NO. 1220 OF 2006 IN WP NO. 1084 OF 2005 (Praful Gangadhar Karve vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & F.M. REIS, JJ. JULY 13, 2009. Heard Shri Mathur, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Kankale, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3, Shri Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5 and Shri Ghate, learned counsel for respondent No.6. This is an application for review of judgment dated 12.7.2005. By that judgment, this Court repelled the challenge made by the petitioner to Respondent No. 6. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of Respondent No.6 on the ground that he had been directly recruited by means of an advertisement. According to the applicant, the appointment ought to have been done by promotion and not by direct recruitment. The Court repelled the challenge on the basis of rules that were pointed out to the Court. Later on, the applicant seems to have discovered the amended rules from which it appears that the appointment could not have been made to the post by way of direct recruitment. 2 Shri Mathur, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the rules which came to the knowledge of the applicant now show that the process of direct recruitment by way of advertisement was not permissible and the respondent’s appointment is illegal. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, pointed out that the applicant participated in the entire selection process without any protest and having done so and failed, he is now not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that Respondent No.6 has been selected and has been working on the post since 5th January 2005. The Shri Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5 has relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sonali Ramkrishna vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2003 (5) Mh. L.J. 739, where after considering the law on the subject, this Court has held in para 10 as follows : “The question before us is : whether the petitioner having participated in the selection process for selection to the post of Senior Tuberculosis Laboratory Supervisor, can be permitted to challenge the selection process, having put in the Wait List and not given appointment. The Selection Committee comprised of five members senior officials/ persons, Chairman of which was the Chief 3 Executive Officer. There are no mala fides or bias imputed to the selection committee as a whole, or any member of the Selection Committee. Had the petitioner been selected in the selection process, obviously he would not have challenged the selection process and method of selection. It is only because the petitioner has been put in the wait list, now all sorts of plea are sought to be set up, including that the selection list prepared purely on the basis of viva voce, is not justified and some other infirmities are sought to be pointed out. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation in holding that petitioner, by his conduct ‘has’ disentitled himself to the discretionary extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” In the result, we decline to entertain the present review application, which is hereby rejected. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.