1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1402 OF 2007 1] Sachin s/o. Uttamrao Ubale Age 27 years, Occ. Student. R/o. Shivram Nagar, Parbhani. 2] Sunil s/o. Gangaram Gadge, Age 29 years, Occ. Student, R/o. Biloli, Dist Nanded. 3] Ajit Abhimanu Deshmukh Age 27 years, Occ. Student. R/o Rajegaon, Tq. Lohar, Dist. Osmanabad. 4] Aniruddha s/o. Annarao Ghonse Age 29 years, Occ. Student, R/o. M.A.U. Campus, Parbhani. 5] Sachin s/o. Narhari Purandare, Age 29 years, Occ. Student. R/o. Vrundavan Colony, Parbhani. .. Petitioners Versus 1] State of Maharashtra through Secretary Department of Agri. Wild Life, Dairy Development and Fisheries, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32. 2] The Commissioner of Agriculture Commissioner ate Maharashtra State, Pune. 2 3] The Divisional Joint Director Agriculture, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4] Keshav s/o. Ganpatrao Joshi, Age 33 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Nathnagar, Parbhani. 5] Jitendrsingh s/o. Baldevsing Dixit Age 32 years,Occ. Service, R/o. Behind Tahsil Office, Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. 6] Chandrashekhar s/o. Balasaheb Kakade, Age 30 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Bansilal Nagar, Aurangabad. 7] Omprakash s/o. Venkati Gajewad Age 24 years, Occ. Nil, R/o. Barbada, Tq. Nayagaon, Dist. Nanded. 8] Kamal d/o. Nagnath Alamwad Age 24 years, Occ. Nil R/o. Barbada, Tq. Naygaon, Dist. Nanded. INTERVENORS. --- Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.K. Kadam, AGP for the respondents 1 to 3 Mr. S.W. Mundhe, Avocate for respondent Nos. 4 to 6 Mr. S.B. Gastgar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 7 & 8. intervenors. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 10TH AUGUST, 2009. 3 ORAL JUDGMENT. : [PER B.R. GAVAI,J.] 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. . The present petition basically challenges the decision of the State Government dated 6th February, 2007, vide which it was decided that the selection list for the post of Krishi Sevak published earlier was to be acted upon. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the select list cannot be permitted to operate beyond a period of one year from the date of selection. 2] Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of the continuation of the wait list beyond the prescribed period, the candidates who subsequently became entitled are deprived of competing for the post. 3] The State has justified its decision on the ground that there was huge number of posts of Krishi Sevak vacant and, therefore, it was decided to fill int eh posts of Krishi Sevak from the select list ,which was already available, on contract basis. It is, therefore, submitted that though initially it was decided to appoint 1711 persons on contract basis, only 987 candidates were appointed. 4] In the affidavit it has submitted that 4 subsequently, the State has advertised 578 posts and the petitioners can very well apply for the same. 5] This Court, while issuing Rule vide order dated 7th October, 2008, has restrained the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from appointing Krishi Sevak out of the waiting list prepared initially for recruitment of Agricultural Assistants. It has been further clarified that the State Government is entitled to recruit Krishi Sevak only under fresh advertisement in accordance with law. This court had also granted leave to add the candidates who were appointed as Krishi Sevak from the said list. 6] This court, vide order dated 16th July, 2009, has observed that though a period of 10 months has lapsed, the petitioner has not taken any steps to bring on record 987 candidates, who were selected from the waiting list. 7] We are afraid, as to whether in the absence of those 987 persons, any order adverse to their interest can be passed. Undoubtedly, even as on today, no steps are taken to bring those 987 persons on record by the petitioner. In the absence of this requirement, we would not be in a position to pass any order i.e. Setting aside their appointment without they being parties to the present petition. 5 8] In so far as the future aspect is concerned, this court has has already protected the interest of the petitioners by observing that hereinafter, the appointment would not be on the basis of the waiting list and the appointment hereinafter would be made only on the basis of the advertisement which would be issued in future. 9] In that view of the matter, we find that it would be appropriate to dispose of the present petition by directing the respondent not to make any appointment on the basis of the waiting list as observed by this court while granting Rule and to make all future appointments on the basis of the advertisement that would be issued, in accordance with the rules. Rule disposed of in aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/wp1402.09