Pritam Subhash Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10942 Bom

                                     1                              wp 8797.2021

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               965 WRIT PETITION NO.8797 OF 2021

                   PRITAM SUBHASH PATIL
                           VERSUS
            THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                            ...
                 Advocate for Petitioner:
         Mr. M. K. Bhosle h/f. Mr. Salok Amol M.
       AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. K. N. Lokhande
                            ...

                               CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                      R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

                               DATE:     12th AUGUST, 2021

 PER COURT:

 1.       The        learned         Counsel   for      the        petitioner

 submits          that         the   petitioner   was      duly        selected

 pursuant            to        the   advertisement        and       his       name

appeared in the wait list. Many candidates issued

with the appointment order had not joined. The

petitioner is entitled to be considered in their

place.

2. The learned Counsel referred to the Judgment

and Order passed in the Writ Petition No. 11843 of

2017 dated 04.05.2021. The respondents ought to

have considered the petitioner for appointment.

2 wp 8797.2021

even as per the Judgment and Order of this Court

in Writ Petition No. 11843 of 2017

dated 04.05.2021.

3. The Wait List was prepared in the year-2016.

In the year-2021, it would be too late in a day to

pass positive orders.

4. The Judgment and Order in Writ Petition

No. 11843 of 2017 dated 04.05.2021 is a matter of

record. In the said Judgment also we had not

directed issuance of the appointment order to any

particular candidate. We had only said that, from

the list, 33 posts should be filled in and we had

passed the order as the petitioners therein had

approached the Court before lapse of 1 year.

5. In view of above, writ petition is disposed

of. No costs.

[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

marathe