1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3931 OF 2009 Usha d/o Digambar Phad R/o. Bhagyanagar, Mahajan Nivas, Beed Now R/o. Rajendra Devidas Kate, Sant Namdeo Nagar, Dhanora Road, Beed. ....Petitioner. Versus The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Beed and others ....Respondents. Shri. M.K. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS, & R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 29th JUNE, 2009 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India by which the petitioner challenges the communication issued by respondent No. 3 dated 15.4.2009, informing the petitioner that her performance at the interview was not satisfactory. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of writ directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner for the post of "accountant" on the 2 consolidated monthly remuneration. 2. It appears that an advertisement came to be issued, inviting applications for the post of "accountant" on a consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs. 7,000/-. Since the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria which was prescribed in the said advertisement, the petitioner was called for interview. However, it appears that the petitioner was the lone candidate, who had applied pursuant to the said advertisement. In any event, the correspondence dated 15th of April 2009 clearly indicates that the respondents have cancelled the entire selection process. The respondents have also communicated to the petitioner that the performance of the petitioner at the interview was not satisfactory. 3. An apprehension is expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner at the interview, the petitioner may not be called for interview in the event an advertisement is issued afresh. There is no foundation whatsoever for the petitioner to nurture this apprehension. The entire selection process has been cancelled and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that the respondents should consider the petitioner for the post of "accountant". In the event, if an advertisement is issued afresh and petitioner is eligible, the petitioner may submit an application. 3 4. Thus, we see no merit in this petition and the same is summarily dismissed. No order as to costs. [ R.K.DESHPANDE, J. ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J. ] ssc/wp3931.09