1 WP 4705/10 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4705 OF 2010 Smt. Yogita Gulabrao Sapkal .. Petitioner V/s Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. A.K. Patil for the petitioner. Mr. R.D. Rane for respondent nos.1 and 3. Mr. S.N. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent nos.2, 5 and 6. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & N.D. DESHPANDE JJ. DATE : 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 P.C. : 1. We have heard Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier in Writ Petition No. 1612 of 2009 and the said petition along with other connected petitions was disposed off in terms of the following directions: “(i) The Petitioners shall appear before the Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Water Conservation on 1st December, 2009 2 WP 4705/10 and submit their representations against their actual or apprehended termination. They shall also serve a copy of that representation on the candidates who are either likely to be appointed and who are actually appointed in their place. (ii) The representations shall be dealt with by the Secretary in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No.7497 of 2008 and decide it in accordance with law. (iii) During the pendency of the proceedings before the Secretary, interim orders which are presently operating shall continue to operate. (iv) It is clarified that the candidates who are either actually appointed and are likely to be appointed in place of the Petitioners shall also have right of audiance before the Secretary. (v) The order shall be made by the Secretary as expeditiously as possible, in any case within a period of four months from 1-12-2009. 3 WP 4705/10 (vi) It is made clear that the Zilla Parishads who are involved in these petitions are also entitled to appear before the Secretary on 1st December, 2009. (vii) Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.” 3. In this petition in the third round, the petitioner prays for directions to respondent no.1 Zilla Parishad to appoint her in the post of Supervisor – Class III in integrated Child Welfare Department at Chandgad, District Kolhapur pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1390 of 2010. 4. Writ Petition No. 1390 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner in the second round and it was decided on 22nd October 2010. 5. The select list pursuant to the interviews held on 10th July 2008 for the post of Supervisor and the select list published pursuant to the oral interviews on 24th December 2008 for the very same post did not list the petitioner as one of the selected or wait-listed candidates from the OBC category. The 4 WP 4705/10 candidates, who were selected from the said category, were Kudtarkar Savita Bhikaji and Kankekar Dhanashree Sagar whereas the wait-listed candidate was Bavdekar Rekha Vijay. It is contended by the petitioner that Kudtarkar Savita Bhikaji did not join and Bavdekar Rekha Vijay had given up her claim and, therefore, she ought to have been appointed for the post of Supervisor. Mr. Rane, learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad, has placed before us a copy of the letter dated 6th September 2010 which he has received from the Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, and as per that letter it is clear that Smt. Rekha Vijay Bavdekar was issued the appointment order on 11th August 2010 and she has reported. She has also submitted the caste certificate and other relevant documents for the verification of her caste. Mr. Patil submitted that Smt. Rekha Vijay Bavdekar, though wait-listed, was not a candidate who was interested and she did not appear before any authority pursuant to the orders passed by this Court earlier and, therefore, it was the petitioner who ought to have been considered for appointment. We do not find any force in this argument and it is not in dispute that Smt. Rekha Vijay Bavdekar was the wait-listed candidate at sr. no.1. In fact, she was the only candidate and her non-appearance before any authority pursuant to the orders passed by this Court does not have any bearing on her candidature. The petitioner 5 WP 4705/10 does not find her place in the select list or in the wait-list and, therefore, she cannot pray for a writ for her appointment. 6. Petition is rejected. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)