1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 876 of 09 Kishor v. CEO and anr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr A.V. Bhide, Adv for petitioner Coram : D.D. Sinha and A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 12th March 2009 1. Heard Mr A.V. Bhide, learned counsel for the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner is in respect of inaction on the part of respondent no.1 in issuing order of appointment as Civil Engineering Assistant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the advertisement issued by Zilla Parishad for filling up the posts of Civil Engineering Assistant, application were invited. Petitioner applied for the said post. The petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee and was also selected, however, till this date, the petitioner did not receive appointment order. Hence, this petition. 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that on earlier occasion, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 3005 of 08 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19th August 2008, whereby the petitioner was permitted to file proper evidence before the appropriate authority in order to prove his case. It is submitted that the petitioner thereafter has received communication dated 8.10.2008 whereby the petitioner was informed by the competent authority that in view of revised rules of 2006 as well as the Government notification dated 2.2.2006, claim of the petitioner cannot be considered. 3. Considered the contention canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show to us the select list of Civil Engineering Assistant published by respondent no. 1 after holding the interviews wherein name of the petitioner is shown as selected candidate. Some correspondence between petitioner and Zilla Parishad placed on record, in our view, cannot be the basis for holding that the petitioner was, in fact, selected by the Selection Committee. In absence of evidence to show that the petitioner was selected for the said post, there is no question of any right vested in the petitioner to seek mandamus against respondent no.1 for issuing order of appointment. On the other hand, the communication dated 8.10.2008 issued by Zilla Parishad shows 3 that even otherwise, claim of the petitioner cannot be considered as per Government Resolution dated 28.5.1998. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Judge. Judge. hsj