On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. The respondent No.3 was appointed on the post of Police Patil in pursuance of a proclamation issued by the respondent No.2 on 18/02/2010 by an order dated 10/06/2010. The respondent No.3 worked on the post of Police Patil for nearly four years. Only because the appointment of the respondent No.3 was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner cannot seek the appointment on the post of Police Patil in pursuance of the proclamation dated 18/02/2010. The process in pursuance of proclamation dated 18/02/2010 was completed on the appointment of the respondent No.3 by the order dated 10/06/2010. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 had worked on the post of Police Patil for nearly four years. The authorities, in the facts of the case, would be entitled to issue a fresh proclamation. The petitioner cannot seek the appointment on the post of Police Patil merely because she was the other candidate, who had applied in pursuance of the proclamation.
