(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1094 OF 1994 Baliram s/o. Gangaram Waghmare, Age : Major, Occupation : Nil, R/o. C/o. Jaisantoshi Ma Tailor, Jangamwadi Road, Nanded, District : Nanded. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Govt. Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. 2. The Collector, Nanded. 3. The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nanded. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Praveen Wagh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. R.K. Ladda, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. S.S. Bora, Advocate, instructed by Mr. S.C. Bora, Advocate, for respondent no.3. (2) ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 7TH JUNE 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioner seeks a writ directing the respondent nos.2 and 3 to appoint the petitioner as Class-III employee against the vacancy available in respondent no.3. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner, that the petitioner was working in the census held in the year 1981 and in the year 1991 and, as such, he is entitled for preferential appointment under the State. It is further the contention of the petitioner, that though the petitioner has cleared the written examination and though he was called for personal interview, for some reasons, personal interviews could not be held and they were postponed. 3. It could thus be seen that a limited grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled to preferential treatment while seeking an employment under the State on the ground that he has worked in the census. 4. The petition is filed in the year 1992. It is not even (3) the case of the petitioner, that he had passed the oral interview. In any event, at the most, the petitioner would be entitled to a preferential claim and not an appointment as a matter of right. Since the petitioner has not cleared the oral examination and since by efflux of time, it will not be possible, at this stage, to direct the claim of the petitioner to be considered, inasmuch as, the petitioner is almost 60 years of age, no interference is warranted in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1094