1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4349 OF 2009 Rajendra s/o Keshavrao Kamble ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr C.V. Thombre, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondents no.1 & 2; Mr U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND R. K. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 10th July, 2009 PER COURT : This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the advertisement dated 9.6.2009 published by respondents no.2 & 3 inviting applications for the post of Pharmacist and also prays that the selection process carried out by the respondents no.2 & 3 in pursuance to the said advertisement be declared null and void. The petitioner also prays that the respondents be directed to appoint the present petitioner on the post of Pharmacist as per the selection and waiting list prepared and published by the respondents on 8.7.2008. 2 2. It appears that the petitioner had appeared for written examination conducted by the respondents no.2 & 3 in pursuance to an advertisement issued inviting applications for the post of Pharmacist. The aforesaid written examination came to be conducted on 28.6.2008. The petitioner thereafter appeared for oral interview and was placed at sr.no.1 in the wait list. Candidates from select list came to be appointed. Subsequently on account of posts of Pharmacist being available for recruitment, an advertisement came to be issued on 9.6.2009. The written examinations pursuant thereto are scheduled to be conducted tomorrow i.e. on 11 th July, 2009. Merely because the petitioner was placed at sr.no.1 in the wait list, the petitioner is not conferred with any legally enforceable right to seek the quashing of the advertisement and his appointment on the post of a Pharmacist. Our attention has been invited to the Govt. Resolution dated 19.8.2007. Clause (9) of the aforesaid Govt. Resolution also does not come to the aid of the petitioner. In the light of that, there is no merit in the petition and the petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [ R. K. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] amj/wp4349.09