2710WP6354.05-Judgment 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6354 OF 2005
PETITIONER :- Rajkumar S/o Jayram Tambe, aged 39 years,
occ.: Nil, R/o Gohalli, P.O.Ghutan, Ta.
Bhivapur, Dist. Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
For Revenue & Forest Irrigation Deptt.
ig Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Collector, Nagpur District, Nagpur, Civil
Lines, Nagpur.
3. District Health Officer & Member Secretary,
District Selection Committee, Zilla Parishad,
Nagpur.
4. The Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur,
Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for the petitioner.
Mr. P. S. Tembhare, Asstt. Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 & 2.
None for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 27.10.2016 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the respondents to complete the selection process for recruitment of posts as per the advertisement No.1/2005. According to ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:12:02 ::: 2710WP6354.05-Judgment 2/2 the petitioner the petitioner ought to have been appointed on a post earmarked for the project affected persons as his name was recommended by the competent authority.
The relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner could not have sought a direct appointment on the post that was earmarked for the project affected persons as it is well settled by the law laid down by the Full Bench of this court that even a project affected person would be required to compete along with the other project affected persons when a post is advertised and a project affected person cannot seek a direct appointment without competing in the selection process after issuance of an advertisement. It is further necessary to note that in view of the interim order, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the selection process, but the petitioner could not succeed and was not selected for appointment.
In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:12:02 :::