JUDGMENT

A.S.Chandurkar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the selection and appointment of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 on the post of Civil Engineering Assistant (Construction) as made by Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal. It is their case that on 25.08.2014 an advertisement was issued by the Zilla Parishad proposing to fill up various posts including the post of Civil Engineering Assistant (Construction). A Selection Committee constituted by the Zilla Parishad prescribed the educational qualifications of S.S.C. alongwith one year Course of Construction Supervisor or Civil Draftsman or any equivalent course. In the written examination conducted by the Selection Committee, the petitioner no.1 secured 134 marks while the petitioner no.2 secured 136 marks. The respondent no.3 secured 136 marks while the respondent no.4 secured 138 marks. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 however had the educational qualification of Bachelor of Engineering (Civil). While, the respondent no.4 came to be appointed the respondent no.3 was placed at serial number one in the waiting list. According to the petitioners, since the advertisement required possessing of qualification of one year Course in Construction Supervisor/Civil Draftsman and the respondent nos. 3 and 4 did not possess the same, but on the contrary were graduates in Engineering, they were not eligible to be considered for selection and appointment. The petitioners made a representation in that regard on 17.12.2016 and as there was no response to the same, this writ petition was filed on 23.12.2016.

3. Shri C.V.Jagdale, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the selection and appointment of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 was not in accordance with the advertisement dated 25.08.2014. Since the educational qualifications prescribed in the advertisement required completion of one year Course of Construction Supervisor or Civil Draftsman which the respondent nos. 3 and 4 did not possess, their candidature ought not to have been considered by the Zilla Parishad. The advertisement did not mention consideration of the candidature of those candidates who had acquired higher qualifications. Despite the petitioners' representation, this aspect was not considered by the Zilla Parishad. The learned counsel referred to the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1483 of 2015 (Prashant B. Moon and anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) that was preferred against similar action taken by Zilla Parishad, Wardha. By the judgment dated 25.10.2016 the Division Bench held that when the minimum required qualification was not possessed by the candidates, the Zilla Parishad could not have permitted such candidates to participate in the selection process. As a result, ineligible candidates participated in the selection process and their names were then included in the select list. On this count, this Court set aside the selection list published by the Zilla Parishad and it was directed to prepare a fresh select list by including the names of such candidates who possessed the minimum required qualifications as per the advertisement. It was submitted that this judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by one of the respondents and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 12.08.2022. On this count, it was submitted that the selection of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 be set aside and the petitioners be appointed on the post of Civil Engineering Assistant (Construction).

4. Shri R.D.Bhuibhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2-Zilla Parishad opposed the aforesaid submissions. At the outset, he submitted that the petitioners had approached the Court belatedly by urging that the advertisement was issued on 25.08.2014 and the selection process had been undertaken in 2015. The posts in question were filled in 2015 and the respondent nos. 3 and 4 had joined their respective posts. The present writ p