wp1678.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1678 OF 2010 Sandeep s/o Dattarao Lekule .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. H.V. Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, AGP for the State. Mr. S.R. Bagal, advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3. ===== CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 2 nd DECEMBER, 2010 PER COURT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. ) 1 Petitioner is seeking appointment to the post of Shikshan Sewak from amongst NT-C category. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has applied for the post of Shiksha Sewak in pursuance to the advertisement issued in the year 2008 and after undergoing the process of selection, he was selected and was kept on the wait list. The petitioner’s name is listed at sr. no. 5 in the wait list. According to the petitioner, there ought to have been three vacancies earmarked for NT-C category. However, respondents wp1678.10 2 filled in only two vacancies. Petitioner’s claim ought to have been considered for appointment but the same has not been considered. It is also further contended that one Goware who has been transferred from other district is accommodated as against the vacancy prescribed for NT-C category. It is further cotended by the petitioner that posting given to Mr. Gaware on transfer, cannot be considered as appointment as against the post reserved for NT-C category. Petitioner as such seeks direction to the respondents for issuance of an order of appointment in pursuance to his selection in the process undertaken by the respondents for making appointment to the post of Shikshan Sewak in the year 2008. 2 Affidavit has been filed by Education Officer (Primary) with a view to oppose the petition. It is admitted that name of the petitioner appears at sr. no. 5 in the wait list prepared by the respondents. It is contended that the selection list was prepared in May 2008 and was valid for a period of one year i.e .until May 2009. Candidate at sr. no. 4 who was above the petitioner was also not offered the post as there was no vacancy. The claim of Mr. Gaware, who was accommodated as per the policy of inter district transfer is accommodated against the vacant post prescribed for NT-C category. Transfer of Mr. Gaware is as per the policy prescribed by the State wp1678.10 3 Government in respect of offering placement to husband and wife at one station as far as possible. It is further contended by the respondents that validity period of the wait list is already exhausted and the respondent – Zilla Parishad has also advertised posts and called applications from eligible candidates for appointment of Shikshan Sewaks. All the vacancies which were available on the date of advertisement have already been declared and advertised. In these circumstances, claim put forth by the petitioner cannot be considered. 3 Considering the fact that the validity period of the wait list has already been exhausted and that fresh advertisement has been issued by the respondent, the claim raised by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be considered in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition is devoid of substance hence stands dismissed. ( R. M. BORDE ) ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb/office/ wp1678.10 4