wp8135.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8135 OF 2010 Shri. Dipak Ashok Naik, R/o-Manodeep, Markand Nagar, Near Ganpati Temple, At and Post-Varangaon, Tq-Bhusawal, Dist-Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Information and Public Relation Ministry, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The Divisional Information and Public Relation Office, Through Deputy Director, Laxmi Nivas, Nashik, 3) The District Information and Public Relation Officer, Jalgaon, Dist-Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.M.M. Bhokarikar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 14TH OCTOBER, 2011. wp8135.10 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. According to the Petitioner, he was given appointment order as projected affected person, on 30th December, 1997. The Petitioner was not allowed to join the duties, according to the counsel for the Petitioner. It is submitted that original application was filed before the Tribunal in this regard. By an order dated 23rd March 2010, the Tribunal disposed of the original application. According to the counsel, the Tribunal did not entertain the original application. It is submitted that the Tribunal did not consider the issue in respect of condonation of delay. 3. The Tribunal has referred to the Judgment delivered by the Full Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Rajendra Pandurang Pagare and wp8135.10 3 another vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2009(4) Mh.L.J. Page 961, in respect of appointment of candidates from project affected category. The Petitioner was given appointment order straightway being belonging to project affected category, without following selection procedure. 4. The plea of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that as the appointment order was issued prior to the decision of the Full Bench, cited supra, the Petitioner ought to have been allowed to join the services. The counsel for the Petitioner submits that on the identical issue, Writ Petition No.4441 of 2008 is admitted. 5. In the facts of the case, we find that the Petitioner approached the Tribunal in the year 2010 for enforcing the appointment order issued in his favour in the year 1997. In our view, there is abnormal and gross delay in approaching the wp8135.10 4 Tribunal. Even on merits, we find that in the light of the Full Bench Judgment, cited supra, the Petitioner is not entitled to seek directions to the Respondents to appoint him. In exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are not convinced to entertain this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/OCT11