IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.471/2008 Ku. Rozina Malik ..vs.. Dist Slectin Committee & ors. =================================== CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE: 30.9.2008 Heard Advocate Shende for the petitioner, A.G.P. for respondent no.1, Advocate Ghate for respondent no.2 and Advocate Shekh for respondent no.3. The contention of the petitioner is that the as select list prepared for 2005-2006 for filling up 7 vacancies was not exhausted, said select list could not have been merged with subsequent vacancies for the year 2006-2007 which forms the subject matter of fresh advertisement. The grievance Committee has after hearing the petitioner rejected his appeal. Before list was exhausted, there was change in policy and also morevacancies became available. Hence on 1.2.2006 another advertisement was issued. Candidates like petitioner from first select list were again interviewed with other freshers. Those from earlier select list who were selected again got the appointment orders. First four candidates in earlier select list attended interview and got selected, while petitioner did not attend interview at all. It is not her case that any candidate who had secured less than her and was below her in earlier select list has been appointed. Mere inclusion of name in select list does not entitle petitioner to appointment. In these circumstances, I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the approach of the Grievance Committee. No interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE smp