1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4265 OF 2005. Zahed Pasha Abdul Rauf, aged about 27 years, Occupation r/o Moulana Azad Ward No.12, Pandharkawada, Tq. Kelapur, District Yavatmal. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya Extension, Fort, Mumbai – 400 032. 2. Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal, Tq. and Distt. Yavatmal, through its Chief Executive Officer. ... RESPONDENTS .... Shri S.A. Gordey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.W. Sambre, Government Pleader for the respondent No.1. Shri Abhijit Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent No.2. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA & PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per D.D. Sinha, J.) 2 The present writ petition is admitted in the year 2005. However, looking to the cause of action involved, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard Shri S.A. Gordey, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Shri N.W. Sambre, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Shri Abhijit Deshpande, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was selected for the post of Shikshan Sevak way back in the year 2000 and his name is shown on the select list dated 26.07.2000. It is submitted that as per the Government Resolution dated 21.10.2002, the respondent/Zilla Parishad has to exhaust the said select list by appointing candidates shown on the said select list on the post of Shikshan Sevak and thereafter if there is any vacancy then that should be filled in by following due procedure applicable in this regard. It is contended that even though the name of 3 the petitioner was shown on select list and there were vacancies in the cadre of Shikshan Sevak, the claim of the petitioner was ignored without any justification and, therefore, appropriate direction in this regard be given to Zilla Parishad. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Zilla Parishad has made a categorical statement that the list which the petitioner is claiming as select is not at all a select list, but it is the merit list of the candidates those who appeared for the interview, which is dated 26.07.2000. It is further contended that the said merit list is prepared in accordance with law. 5. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel. The statement made by the Zilla Parishad though controverted by the petitioner, however, we have seen the list dated 26.07.2000 and the note written on the said list shows that it is the merit list of the candidates those who appeared for the interview and that should not be treated as select list. If that is so then the claim of the petitioner is 4 unjustified and devoid of substance. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.