1 wp1931.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1931 OF 2011 KJ Dr.Ramkrishna Wasudeo Limje )..Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr.R.C.Kotiankar for the petitioner. Mr.Rahul Nerlekar alongwith Ms.Pinaz Contractor for respondent nos.4 to 9. Mr.Avadesh Nathani for respondent nos.2 & 3. ---- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 21/4/2011. PC 1 The petitioner has challenged the selection process conducted by the respondents for the post of Professor in NITIE. The selection process was conducted in the years 2000-2001 and 2006. According to the petitioner, he was holding necessary qualification of Ph.D. However, he was not selected. 2 wp1931.11.sxw 2 It was pointed out by the respondents that they have carried out the necessary procedure for scrutiny of the candidates from time to time. In the selection process of 2001, the institute i.e respondent received in all 27 applications and out of 27, six candidates were called for the interviews and petitioner was one of them. However, he was not selected as the respondent no.4 was found to be more suitable. In 2004 again petitioner did not succeed. Again the selection process was conducted in the year 2006 for the post of Associate Professor and Assistant Professor, wherein 200 applications were received, out of them, 95 candidates were called for interviews by the Screening committee. After scrutiny, 20 candidates were selected including the respondent nos.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9. They were appointed for the post of Professors. Thus all the private respondents were selected through proper selection process. 3 Petitioner did not apply for the same post thereafter in the successive years and therefore, his name was never considered for the post of Professor by the respondent-institute albeit selection 3 wp1931.11.sxw process was held twice after 2006 by the respondent-institute. In the absence of such application, the respondents were justified in not considering him for the post of Professor. Moreover, we do not find merit in this petition on the ground of laches in so far as challenge to the selection process of 2001, 2004 and 2006 is concerned. Hence, petition is dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)