1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2059 OF 2007 (Sau. Sandhya s/o Ravindra Mokasdar vs. Shri Sarda Education Society and others) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : MARCH 31, 2008 Heard Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Thakre, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 3 to 5, and Shri Mohta, learned Counsel for the respondent no.6. Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that in the instant petition, petitioner is challenging advertisement dated 21.4.2007 issued by the respondent Management whereby applications were invited for the purpose of filling up the post of Librarian on contract basis. It is submitted that petitioner was earlier appointed on contract basis for a period of two years and as per Government Circular 2 dated 31.5.2005, if the Management does not want to fill up the post on permanent basis, in such situation, in spite of expiry of contract period, service of the candidate, who was holding the post on contract basis, should be continued. However, the respondent Management in spite of the fact that the petitioner was already holding the said post, issued advertisement for filling up the said post ignoring the above referred Government Circular and, therefore, appropriate direction may be issued. Shri Thakre, learned Assistant Government Pleader states that there were complaints against the petitioner and, therefore, service of the petitioner came to be terminated. Since respondent Management wanted to fill up the vacancy, advertisement in question was issued. It is contended that pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner also participated in the process of selection. In the backdrop of the above referred facts particularly since petitioner has already participated in the process of selection, in our 3 view, it is not open for the petitioner now to raise grievance against the said advertisement. The petition suffers from lack of merit and hence, the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj