VERSUS

16. Jugal Suryabhan Mahajan Age: 29 years. Occ. Ni. Residing at: Plot No.18, Survey No.31b/4, Vishwasnagar, Ashoknagar, Satpur, Nashik-422 012.

17. Ashok Balasaheb Shrekane Age: 29 years, Occ. Nil Residing at: at Post. Releras, Tal. Barshi, Dist. Solapur-413 402

18. Mohan Dadarao Wakode Age: 27 years. Occ. Nil. Residing at: Khadse Plot, Buldhana Road, Nandura, Dist. Buldhana-443 404

19. Abhishek Anil Sinkar Age: 27 Years, Occ. Nil Residing at: 346/c, Rambhavan, Opp. Plaza Cinema, N.C. Kelkar Road, Dadar West, Mumbai400 028.

20. Gokul Manik Patil Age: 26 years. Occ. Nil. Residing at: At Post Vivare Budruk, Tal. Raver. Dist. Jalgaon-425 508.

21. Ganesh Ansiram Kakde Age: 26 years. Occ. Nil. Residing at: C 41/2, Sangharsh Nagar, N-2, CIDCO, Aurangabad-431 001

22. Akash Ashok Satpute Age: 24 years, Occ. Nil. Residing at: Flat No.7, Yamuna Enclave Society, Behind Hotel Mirchi, Kailasnagar, Aurangabad Road, Panchvati, Nashik-422 003.

23. Nitin Tarachand Mali Age: 35 Years, Occ. Nil. Residing at: 125, Near Ekvira Devi Mandir, Lane 7 Devpur, Dhule-424 001.

24. Gajanan Shridharrao Pawar Age: 34 Years. Occ. Nil. Residing at: Bhagya Nagar, Gangakhed, Tal. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani-431 514

25. Tukaram Sopan Pare Age: 31 Years, occ. Nil. Residing at: MIG 23, Avishkar Colony, N-6, CIDCO, Aurangabad-431 001.

26. Pradip Vilas Lahane Age: 31 Years, Occ. Nil. Residing at: Post Karanji, Tal. Malegan, Dist. Washim-444 504.

27. Sandeep Bhagwan Dandge Age: 30 years, Occ. Nil. Residing at: Plot No.19/20, Jantwada Road, Radha Swami Colony, Harsul, Aurangabad-431 001.

28. Anup Hemant Vyavhare Age: 30 years. Occ. Nil. Resin at: Plot No.6, Nandanwan Colony, Anmol Banglow, Jai Bhavanird, Nashik Road, Nashik-433 101

29. Parasram Mitthu Belhekar Age 30 years. Occ. Nil. Residing at: At. Sonai, Tal Nevasa, Dist. Ahmednagar-414 105

30. Kiran Shantaram Darade Age: 29 Years, Occ. Nil Residing at: At Post. Hatgaon, Tal. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon-424 108.

31. Sopan Eknath Pisute, Age: 29 Years, Occ. Nil. Residing at: Majaleshahar, Post. Shahartakali, Tal. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar

32. Balaji Manikrao More Age: 29 Years, Occ. Nil. Residing at: Nanja, Post. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalnaaa-431 114

33. Ashish Vitthal Hingmire Age: 26 years, Occ. Nil. Residing at: Post Vidul, Tal. Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal-445 206

34. Sambhaji Bhaskar Bondre Age: 25 Years, Occ. Nil. Residing at: Deogav, Post. Ektuni, Tal. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad-431 121

35. Samadhan Sajan Patil Age: 25 years. Occ. Nil. Residing at: Post. Gadkhanb, Tal. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon-425 401

36. Vaibhav Kushalrao Shinde Age: 25 Years, Occ. Nil. Residing at Pusad. Tal Pusad. Dist. Yavatmal-445 204.

37. Chaitanya Namdeo Pawar Age: 24 Years, Occ. Nil. Residing at: Post. Chitegaon, Tal. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. … Petitioners

VERSUS

1. High Court of Judicature at Bombay Through its Registrar General High Court, Mumbai

2. High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad Through Registrar at Aurangabad … Respondents *** Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar a/w Mr. Siddhesh Pilankar for the Petitioners. Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Rahul Nerlekar for Respondent Nos.[1] and 2. *** CORAM: DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR & KAMAL KHATA, JJ.

RESERVED ON: 6 FEBRUARY 2023 PRONOUNCED ON: 15 FEBRUARY 2023: JUDGMENT: Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.. The Petitioners challenge the Notice dated 30 June 2020 issued by the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, whereby the request of the Petitioners for extending the validity of the wait list has been rejected.

2 Briefly stated the material facts are as under: The Petitioners responded to an advertisement dated 11 April 2018, inviting applications from eligible candidates for 68 posts of Peons. As per the advertisement notifcation, besides a select list of 68 candidates, a wait list of another 68 candidates was to be prepared. The names of the Petitioners fgured in the wait list. Admittedly, all 68 candidates on the select list joined against selected posts on different dates. Thereafter, out of the candidates who had submitted their joining reports, 3 candidates resigned, while one was discharged from service. The Petitioners, who otherwise fgured in the wait list, therefore, started making efforts to seek an extension in the validity of the wait list, which was otherwise to remain valid only for a period of two years, hoping that they would get appointed against the posts that had fallen vacant. The prayer of the Petitioners, however, stood rejected by the Chief Justice vide the Order dated 17 June 2020, on account of the fact that all 68 vacancies having been flled up, the wait list did not survive.

3 The issue that arises in the present case is whether the Petitioners whose names fgured in the wait list have any right of consideration for appointment against the posts, which fall vacant after the posts had been duly flled up in the selection process. If the answer is in the negative, then the challenge to the Notice impugned dated 30 June 2019 would fail.

4 A similar issue had also arisen in Priti Subhashrao Sawake Vs. The State of Maharashtra[1], where on almost similar facts, where the Petitioners in the said Petition were seeking appointment in excess of the vacancies advertised based upon the fact that their names fgured in the wait list, whose validity period had otherwise

1 Writ Petition No.10510 of 2022 decided on 9 January 2023 expired, a Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Thakur J) was a member, dismissed the Petition by inter alia holding that merely because the names of the candidates fgured in the wait list by itself created no indefeasible right to seek appointment. It was also held that candidates’ right to seek appointment was limited to consideration for appointment, in a case where any of the selected candidates did not join and further that no appointment could be made in excess of the posts advertised. It was also held that the wait list could not be used as a perennial source of recruitment, as it would deprive others from consideration for such an appointment and create a vested interest in favour of those, whose names fgured in the wait list. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the cases of Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association Vs. State of Gujrat[2], Prem Singh Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board[3] and Madan La Vs. State of J & K[4]. It was thus held that once the advertised vacancies are flled up the list would exhaust itself.

5 The Petitioners in the present case do not deny the averments made by the High Court in its affdavit that all 68 posts advertised had been flled up and that it was only subsequently that 3 selected candidates resigned after joining and one who was discharged from 2 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591 3 1996 SCC (4) 319 service. Any vacancy accruing subsequently, thus, would not result in a vacancy, which would be required to be flled up from out of the wait list, assuming that it was still valid.

6 We, accordingly, hold that once advertised vacancies were flled up, the select list as also the wait list would exhaust itself, therefore, no right would survive in favour of the Petitioners as was the view taken by this Court in Priti Subhashrao Sawake (supra).

7 Be that as it may, the Petition is found to be without merit and is, thus, accordingly, dismissed. (KAMAL KHATA, J.) (DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.)