1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5202/2008 ( Dhanraj Motiram Tembhurnikar .vrs. The Collector 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 : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : JULY 28, 2009. Heard Shri M.R. Kalar, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri Doifode, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and Shri A.Y. Kapgate, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. Contention is that, in first list of eligible candidates from category of project affected person prepared on 31.01.2003, name of petitioner appeared at Sr.No.13. In subsequent list prepared in 11.09.2008, name of petitioner could not have been included at Sr. No.9. It is further contended that out of 13 persons contained in the list prepared on 31.01.2003, 12 persons were given employment and petitioner alone was excluded. Learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and learned Counsel for respondent no.2 Zilla Parishad, have pointed out that selection made in the year 2003 cannot be reopened in 2008. They further contend that the list in which name of petitioner appears at Sr.No.9 has been prepared on the basis 2 of date of registration and qualification are also mentioned in that list. As per the date of registration of petitioner, the petitioner has been placed at sr.no.9. We have perused the records and we find that list of project affected persons is not for any particular post. The date of registration by project affected person is therefore, relevant. In the list prepared on 11.09.2008 though name of petitioner appears at Sr.No. 9, all 8 persons above him have got themselves registered prior to petitioner, and therefore, no fault can be found with fact that the name of petitioner’s name appear at sr.no.9. Petitioner has obtained his diploma on 20.01.2003 and 8 persons above him have obtained it subsequently. The date of obtaining the diploma is not the criteria for grant of employment under category of project affected persons. Grievance being made is in the light of list of 2003 and employment provided in 2003, was not questioned in any way. The said list prepared in 2003 was also followed in next year. The learned Counsel for petitioner has contended that there is 5% separate quota for project affected persons and petitioner also belong to Scheduled Caste. However, by reply dated 09.03.2005, the petitioner was informed that in selection undertaken on 29.11.2004 , there was no seat vacant for Scheduled caste candidate. The petitioner has not pointed his supercession in the matter by any Scheduled Caste candidate. No case is made out warranting interference in Writ Petition, the same thus dismissed, no cost. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to be considered as per his position in the seniority 3 list when ever the vacancies meant for project affected persons are sought to be filled in. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.