Savita Prakash Pan Patil v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

1 wp 1379.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1379 OF 2016 Savita Prakash Panpatil .. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri C. S. Kulkarni, A. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri Pravin S. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & S. M. GAVHANE, JJ.

DATE : 7 th November, 2017 PER COURT :

1.

Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was selected for the post of 'Gram Sevak'. Pursuant to the selection process 4 posts were meant for S.C. (Woman). The said selection process was conducted in the year 2008. According to the learned counsel, only 3 posts of S.C. (Woman) were filled in 1 post was not filled in. The petitioner was given to understand that when the writ petition so filed by one of the candidates would be decided then the petitioner would be given appointment. The said writ petition was decided in the year 2011. The petitioner was not party to the said writ petition,

2 wp 1379.16 as such, was not aware of the proceedings therein. It was incumbent upon the respondent to issue appointment order to the petitioner. In fact, the post of S.C. category candidates ought to be filled in.

2.

We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents. 3.

The present writ petition is filed in the year 2016 seeking directions against the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner with regard to the selection process conducted in the year 2008. The advertisement was issued contemplating vacancies that would arise in future. However, the vacancy did not arise because of some litigation and the post of 'Gram Sevak' did not become vacant.

4.

In light of the above, the petitioner could not have been appointed. The select list would not continue for such a long period of 8 years.

5.

Considering the above, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

[S. M. GAVHANE, J. ] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] marathe/Nov.17