WP No. 8194/09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8194 OF 2009 Shivaji s/o. Sahebrao Deshmukh, Gram Panchayat Dhoki, Dist. Osmanabad. ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. P.S. Gaikwad & Mr. A.J. Talhar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G. Ghute-Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1. Mr. A.B. Dhongade, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 19th September, 2011. ORDER : [ PER T. V. NALAWADE, J. ] 1. The petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution for giving direction to respondent No. 2 - Zilla Parishad that it should consider the petitioner for the appointment to Class III post on the establishment of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit in reply. Both the sides are heard. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been WP No. 8194/09 2 working with respondent No. 3 - Village Panchayat since 1990. He has contended that he is entitled to get appointment on the establishment of respondent No. 2 - Zilla Parishad in view of the scheme prepared by the State Government in the year 2005. He has contended that in the year 2007 when seniority list for giving appointment by way of nomination was prepared, he was eligible for the appointment and so his name was included in the seniority list. He has contended that in the year 2008 he supplied necessary document to establish his eligibility. He has contended that he then passed typing test of Marathi and English languages held by Government Institution and produced copies of certificates to show his eligibility. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 21.4.2008 some employees, who were shown as junior to him in the seniority list, came to be appointed on the establishment of Zilla Parishad. He has contended that in the latest seniority list published on 31.7.2009 his name does not appear. He has contended that some junior persons like Shri. Suresh Mali and Shri. Hafim Patel are appointed by way of nomination on the establishment of Zilla Parishad and his rightful claim is not considered by the respondents. WP No. 8194/09 3 4. Respondents have denied that persons junior to the petitioner are appointed on the establishment of Zilla Parishad and there was any rightful claim of the petitioner. It is admitted that in the first list published on 31.7.2007 there was the name of petitioner. It was submitted in this proceeding that for getting appointment by way of nomination on the establishment of Zilla Parishad, the candidate is required to satisfy the conditions mentioned in Government Resolution dated 22.5.2005. 5. The aforesaid Government Resolution shows that for getting appointment to Class III post on the establishment of Zilla Parishad, the candidate is required to possess necessary educational qualification, certificate of MS CIT and also other requisite qualifications. There is the condition that the candidate must not have crossed the age of 45 years. Attention of this Court was drawn to the Rule 5 of Appendix IX of Zilla Parishad Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1967. The Rule shows that the candidate must have passed Marathi and English typing tests held by Government Institution like G.C.C. for getting such appointment. The provision shows that if the candidate holds certificate in respect of one language, he can allowed to acquire certificate of other language within two years of the appointment. WP No. 8194/09 4 6. The record shows that the petitioner was born on 28.8.1961 and he had completed age of 45 years on 28.8.2006. He is from Open Category. The petitioner obtained certificate in respect of English typing on 8.9.2008 and he obtained certificate in respect of Marathi typing on 13.3.2009. Admittedly, some appointments were made in the year 2008. Thus, in the year 2008 when some appointments were made, the petitioner had crossed the age of 45 years and he was not eligible. Only because in the year 2007 his name was entered in seniority list, it cannot be said that he had vested right to get the appointment. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that there is no merit in this petition and the petition stands dismissed. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/