1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1969 OF 2008 1. Ramprasad Sunderrao Kolhe and another .. .. Petitioners Versus 1. Zilla Parishad, Jalna through it's Chief Executive Officer and others .. .. Respondents Shri R. J. Godbole, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri C. G. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 2 served. Shri S. V. Kurundkar, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 04TH JANUARY, 2010. ORAL ORDER [ PER A. P. DESHPANDE, J. ] : 1. The present petitioners are candidates belonging to open category. An advertisement was issued on 17th November, 2006 in daily news paper inviting applications for filling in the posts of Resource Person-Center Coordinator. Out of total posts advertised, 50 posts were earmarked for open category candidates. The petitioners being interested in seeking appointment, they had applied for the said post. 2 2. The process of selection comprised of written test, so also oral interviews. In the list of 50 successful candidates from open category, the petitioners' name did not figure and those selected 50 persons were issued appointment orders. A wait list was also prepared and in the waiting list the petitioner No. 1 was at serial No. 15, whereas the petitioner No. 2 was at serial No. 7. Perusal of the advertisement would reveal that the posts were to be filled in on contract basis for a period of six months only. It so happened that though 50 persons were selected, 42 joined and thus 8 vacancies remained to be filled in. 3. It is an admitted position that out of 8 vacancies, 02 vacancies are reserved for candidates from 'woman' category. Thus, for the open category 6 vacancies remained to be filled. In that view of the matter, the present petition came to be filed seeking writ of mandamus against the respondents to fill in all the vacant posts advertised on 17th November, 2006. The wait list prepared by the respondent was to remain valid for a period of one year and would thereafter lapse. 4. In the present case, the waiting list has already lapsed. The term for which the appointments are made has come to an end long back. The respondents have filed affidavit in reply and therein pointing out that the petitioners could not be considered for filling in the vacancies, as they were down below in the waiting list and the waiting list has also lapsed. It is also categorically stated in the additional affidavit in reply dated 19th December, 2009 that from 02nd January, 2009, the Government has changed policy in regard to 3 filling in the concern post. The posts which were to be filled in on contractual basis earlier are now to be filled in as per the norms laid down in the circular dated 02nd January, 2009 by deputing regular teachers on the establishment of the respondent. It can be thus safely said that the present petition would not succeed, firstly for the reason that the wait list has lapsed on expiry period of one year and there is no waiting list in existence and secondly for the reason that the posts which are still lying vacant will have to be filled in by following the criteria laid down in the circular dated 02nd January, 2009. The petitioners have no vested right to seek the appointment for the reasons set out hereinabove. We do not see any merit in the petition. Hence the petition stands summarily dismissed. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ A. P. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Jan. 2010