1 wp9141.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9141 OF 2010 Babasaheb s/o Murlidhar Autade, Age: 34 years, Occ: : At present Police Patil, R/o. Aagathan, Tq. Gangapur, Dist.Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. B.S. Shinde, Advocate holding for Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. M.V. Navandar, Advocate for respondent No.4. ... CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 26TH APRIL, 2011 PER COURT : By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29-07-2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad in Original Application No. 38 of 2010. 2 wp9141.10 The aforesaid Original Application was preferred by respondent No. 4 herein challenging the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Police Patil on various grounds. 2. In response to the advertisement, the present petitioner and respondent No. 4 herein Prabhakar Autade applied for the post of Police Patil of village Agathan Taluka Gangapur District Aurangabad. The present petitioner secured 185 marks and respondent No. 4 secured less marks i.e. 167.5. The candidate who secured highest marks i.e. 187.5 namely one Chandile Namdeo Karbhari was appointed as Police Patil. 3. It seems that after about 15 months from the appointment as Police Patil, Chandile Namdeo Karbhari resigned from the said post. The said post again became vacant. At that stage, the Sub Divisional Officer thereafter appointed the present petitioner on the aforesaid vacant post. The said appointment of the petitioner was 3 wp9141.10 challenged by respondent No. 4 by way of Original Application No. 38 of 2010 before the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal found that since the appointment of the present petitioner was without following the fresh selection process as required by rule 7 of Maharashtra Village Police (Recruitment, Pay, Allowances and Other Conditions of Service) Order, 1968, the appointment of the present petitioner was required to be quashed and set aside and accordingly, set aside. The said order is challenged by the present petitioner in this petition. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the earlier incumbent had resigned from the said post, the Sub Divisional Officer has rightly appointed the petitioner on the aforesaid post. As against this, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 herein, argued that if present petitioner was not appointed on the aforesaid post, there would have 4 wp9141.10 been fresh advertisement and respondent No.4 could have appeared afresh for interview, undertaken by the Department. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that as select list was exhausted, the Department was required to follow fresh selection process. 5. The learned A.G.P. supported the order of the Tribunal by stating that the select list was already exhausted and it was for the selection of one post and the person was already selected. She further submits that in any case, life of select list was of one year and earlier appointed person i.e. Chandile Namdeo Karbhari resigned the said post after 15 months and therefore, select list was not inforce and therefore, the petitioner could not be appointed. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 7. In our view, there is no substance in the 5 wp9141.10 petition. It is required to be noted that the advertisement was given for the purpose of appointing Police Patil i.e. regarding one post only. The select list was already exhausted as one Chandile Namdeo Karbhari was already appointed and he thereafter resigned after more than 15 months. The Tribunal rightly found that thereafter the Department was required to follow fresh selection process instead of appointing present petitioner on the said post, even the list was not in existence and it was only for one year. In our view, the Tribunal has rightly set aside the appointment of the present petitioner and the Department is now required to advertise for the said post, so that eligible persons can apply for the same. If any fresh advertisement is given, it will be open to the petitioner and respondent No. 4 again to apply in case they are eligible for the said post. However, so far as the impugned order is concerned, we do not find any illegality in the same. The petition is without merit and accordingly, same is dismissed. Interim relief, 6 wp9141.10 if any, stands vacated. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [ P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] sut/Apr11