IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3436 OF 2009 Raju Dattatraya Lagare ..Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade for Petitioner Smt. S.S. Bhende, AGP for Respondent No.1 Mr. Harish Pandya a/w Vishal Maheshwari and Amey a Gopkhale, I/b Khaitan & Co. for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : MARCH, 03, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, leaned AGP for respondent No.1 and learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2 In the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the appointments made by respondent on the post of Executive Engineer during the year 2006, on the basis of advertisement 1/2006 as well as seeking directions to the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointments on the post of Executive Engineer. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length the following facts were brought to the notice of the Court. 3. The petitioner for the first time applied for the post of Executive Engineer pursuant to the first advertisement, which was published by the respondent in the year 2006. The petitioner also participated in the process of interview. However he was not selected by respondent No.2. Respondent No. 2 once again on completion of the first interview process, published another advertisement 1-2007 for filling up the various posts including that of Executive Engineer. However, the petitioner did not apply pursuant to the said advertisement. Respondent No.2 once again advertised the post in the year 2009, pursuant to which the petitioner submitted his application. However, he did not participate in the process of interview and for the first time filed the present petition questioning the validity and propriety of the advertisement and recruitment process undertaken by respondent No.2 for the year 2006. It is in these peculiar circumstances, when the petitioner after taking second chance, approached this Court that too in 2009, however we do not propose to show any indulgence at such belated stage in the present writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)