Dinesh Natthu Rathod v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Through Its General Manager And Another

1 wp 3470.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3470 OF 2016 Dinesh Natthu Rathod .. Petitioner

Versus

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its General Manager and another .. Respondents Mr. Ravindra Vitthal Gore, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Respondent No. 1 - served.

Mr. D. S. Bagul, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & S. M. GAVHANE, JJ.

DATE:

th September, 2018 PER COURT :

1.

Mr. Gore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's name was included in the additional selection list. According to the learned counsel, the advertisement was issued for filling in the posts of Steno / Clerk, still, the posts for which the advertisement was issued are vacant. However, the respondents have not issued any appointment order to the petitioner. No reasons are given by the respondent -

2 wp 3470.16 authorities. According to the learned counsel, the candidate at Serial No. 23 Jadhav Mojilal Ajesing has been disqualified. The petitioner is the only eligible candidate from V.J.N.T.

category.

2.

Mr. Bagul, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the name of the petitioner was in additional selection list. The original selection list coupled with waiting list is not yet exhausted. The list is for a period of one year only. In case, some candidate is considered from the additional selection list, then the case of the petitioner would be considered.

3.

It appears that the petitioner had applied from V.J.N.T. Category for the post of Steno / Clerk and the name of the petitioner was included in the additional selection list. Naturally, unless the original selection list is exhausted the persons from the additional selection list may not be considered. It is also submitted by the

3 wp 3470.16 respondent that the life of the select list is for one year. However, if the Central Office of the respondent takes any decision to operate the additional select list, then certainly the case of the petitioner also can be considered by the respondent.

4.

Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. No costs.

[S. M. GAVHANE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] marathe