1 wp1068.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1068 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and the Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: Smt. Nishita Mhatre, & Shri M. T. Joshi, JJ. Date : 5th August 2011 Shri V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel, instructed by Shri P.D. Bahate, Advocate, for the Petitioners. Shri N.B. Patil, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 5. Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. ---------- 1. This petition has been filed by persons who claim to be project affected persons. They contend that they were selected and appointment orders were issued to them as Shikshan Sevaks in the category of Project Affected Persons. However, their certificates were sent for verification on three occasions, as a result of which they were not continued in service. 2 wp1068.10 2. In the meantime, the Full Bench of this Court passed an order in the case of Rajendra Pandurang Pagare vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (4) Bom.CR 928. By this judgment, the Full Bench has held that the project affected persons cannot be appointed without advertising the posts and ignoring their qualifications and merit. 3. It appears from the averments made in the present writ petition that there was no advertisement issued before the petitioners were selected to the posts of Shikshan Sevak. They were selected on the basis of the certificates that they were the project affected persons. 4. Obviously, therefore, this selection is in violation of the decision of the Full Bench in Rajendra Pagare's case (supra). 3 wp1068.10 5. Mr. Dixit, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that others, who were similarly situated, have been appointed, because their certificates were not sent for verification for the number of times that the petitioners' certificates were verified. He, therefore, urges that this would amount to discrimination against the petitioner. 7. In our opinion, we need not go into the appointments of those persons, in the present writ petition. The petitioners herein had no right to be appointed without the posts being advertised. 8. In these circumstances, the petition is dismissed. (M.T. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) pnd/wp1068.10