:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4306 OF 2007 Shri Harivijay Sopanrao Kamble ..Petitioner Vs. The Deputy Director of Health Service, Mumbai Circle, Thane ..Respondent Mr. S.N. Deshpande for petitioner. Ms. P.S. Cardozo, AGP for State. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : January 11, 2008. Date : January 11, 2008. Date : January 11, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Deshpande the learned counsel for the petitioner who is already in the employment of the State Government under the Deputy Director of Health Service, Mumbai Circle holding the post of Male Attendant and he belongs to the scheduled caste. He claimed that he owns the qualification of B.Sc., D.Pharma and, therefore, he is entitled to be promoted to the post of Pharmacist or X ray technician. He joined the service on 28/1/1998 as Male Attendant (Class IV). :2: 2. On 23/7/2004 an advertisement was released for filling the five posts of Pharmacist by nomination and it appears one of them was reserved for the scheduled caste. The complainant responded to the said advertisement. He went through the selection process, but in the merit list for scheduled caste persons he was at Sr.No.2 and the candidate at Sr.No.1 was appointed. He filed the Complaint (ULP) No.228 of 2004 alleging an unfair labour practice at the hands of Deputy Director of Health Service under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 (the Act for short). The respondent filed affidavint-in-reply and opposed the complaint. It was pointed out that the Government of Maharashtra has framed Rules for the recruitment to the post of Pharmacist/Compounder in class III, in the Directorate of Health Services and they are called as "Directorate of Health Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1990. As per the said Rules the appointment to the post of Pharmacist/Compounder is by nomination only. It was further pointed out that in the advertisements released in the year 2004 as well as in the year 2005 the petitioner-complainant had applied and as stated :3: earlier he was at Sr.No.2 in the merit list as against the single post. Whereas in the subsequent year 2005 he was at Sr.No.150 in the merit list and, therefore, in both the lists he could not be selected by nomination. 3. It is thus clear that the petitioner had undergone the selection process by nomination for the post of Pharmacist but he did not find his place in the merit list so that against the available vacancies he could be appointed. The Industrial Court, therefore, rightly rejected the complaint by holding that no unfair labour practice could be attributed to the Deputy Director of Health Service and more so when the selection process was undertaken as per the Rules of 1990. The reasoning set out by the Industrial Court in dismissing the complaint cannot be termed as perverse or patently erroneous so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. :4: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)