levelled by the petitioners, in this case. Firstly, Shri Avinash Garhate was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk and not on the post of Parichar/Peon. The advertisement dated 19/09/2013 was for appointment to the post of Parichar/ Peon. Moreover, Shri Avinash Garhate was appointed on 16/09/2013, i.e. before the issuance of the advertisement on 19/09/2013. Also, it does not appear that the Education Officer (Primary) was one of the members on the Selection Committee. Since the appointment of Shri Avinash Garhate was on the post of Junior Clerk and the same was made before the issuance of the advertisement on 19/09/2013, there was no illegality even if the Education Officer (Primary) was one of the members of the Selection Committee. We, however, find that he was not a member of the Committee. After Writ Petition No.368 of 2014 filed by some of the other candidates was dismissed, the petitioners, without verifying the correctness or otherwise about the appointment of Shri Avinash Garhate in pursuance of the advertisement dated 19/09/2013, filed the instant petition raising the said ground. We do not find any merit in the statement made on behalf of the petitioners in regard to the illegal constitution of the Selection Committee and the illegal appointment of the son of the Education Officer (Primary). Even the list of candidates selected in pursuance of the advertisement dated 19/09/2013 and filed by the petitioners on record does not include the name of Shri Avinash Garhate.
