1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2667 OF 2006 Nana Shyamraoji Gedam .vs. Mah. State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & another ________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders. Registrars orders. Mr. N.R. Saboo, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. R.K. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no. 1, Mr. A. D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for respondent no. 2. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA & C.L. PANGARKAR, JJ. DATED: JULY 17, 2008. As the petitioner was not appointed/selected, he has invoked the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, principally against the respondents on the ground of non-selection though he is marked eligible as alleged. The fact remains that respondent no.2 was selected by respondent no.1 – a committee duly constituted and especially after considering the basic qualification as required as per advertisement. Such action of respondent no.1, therefore, cannot be tested in petition like this, especially when there are no materials even to justify the allegations of any malafides or arbitrariness. The respondents in fact acted within the scope and power. Therefore, there is no question of interference in the said appointment, also 2 for the reason that no further rights can be claimed by the petitioner, merely because he was in the recommendation list as prepared by respondent no.1. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE. J.