JUDGMENT : S.G. Pandit, J. The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement bearing No. KIMS/CV(3)/260/2015-16 dated 15.03.2016 Annexure-G issued by the first respondent as arbitrary and unsustainable in law and for a further direction to the first respondent to appoint the petitioner as Junior Laboratory Technician in the first respondent Institute. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the first respondent issued notification calling for applications to fill up the post of Junior Laboratory Technician. The petitioner being Scheduled Caste candidate and being eligible applied for the post of Junior Laboratory Technician. For candidate who belonged to Scheduled Caste category maximum age limit was 38 years as on the last date of submitting the application. One Vasant Kolkar who was over aged i.e. 45 years of age was selected and appointed as Junior Laboratory Technician. Aggrieved by the petitioner’s non-selection and appointment of over aged person, the petitioner filed writ petition No.64088/2009 before this Court. This Court by a common order dated 06.03.2012 rejected the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.30609/2012. This Court by order dated 15.07.2013 allowed the Writ Appeal in the following terms: 5. In view of what is stated above, respondent No.3 was not even eligible to apply for the post. As respondent No.3 did not satisfy the eligibility criteria, his selection to the post of Junior Lab Technician cannot be sustained in law. This aspect of eligibility was not examined by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the order dtd. 06.03.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.64088/2009 is set aside. The selection of respondent No.3 to the post of Junior Lab Technician is also set aside. 3. Appointment of third respondent therein i.e. Vasant Kolkar, was set aside as he did not satisfy the eligibility criteria. The contention of the petitioner is that consequent to setting aside the appointment of the said Vasant Kolkar the first respondent ought to have considered the petitioner for appointment as Junior Lab Technician. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made representation dated 06.02.2016 to the first respondent. In the meanwhile, it is stated that the petitioner also filed contempt petition in C.C.C. No.100326/2014 which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1/2014 in Writ Appeal No.30609/2012 seeking clarification, which was also dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made representation dated 06.02.2016 to the first respondent. In the meanwhile, it is stated that the petitioner also filed contempt petition in C.C.C. No.100326/2014 which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1/2014 in Writ Appeal No.30609/2012 seeking clarification, which was also dismissed. The first respondent considering the representation of the petitioner by endorsement dated 15.03.2016 rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that there is no direction in the order dated 15.07.2013 passed in writ appeal No.30609/2012 to appoint the petitioner. Further, the endorsement also makes it clear that the name of the petitioner was not in the select list nor in the additional list of selected candidates. Hence, it was observed that there is no provision for appointing the petitioner. Challenging the said endorsement and seeking for a mandamus to the first respondent to appoint the petitioner as Junior Laboratory Technician, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 6. On hearing the learned counsels and on perusal of the writ papers, the only question which requires consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for appointment as Junior Laboratory Technician in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The answer is in the negative for the following reasons. 7. The respondent No.1 under notification dated 02.09.2008 called applications for appointment of X-ray/Echo/CATH/Lab/Laboratory Technicians. The petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste category. The maximum age after relaxation for Scheduled Caste category was 38 years. The petitioner being eligible had applied for the post of Junior Laboratory Technician in pursuance to the above said notification. The respondent No.1 on completion of the selection process appointed one Vasanth Kolkar as Junior Lab Technician. The petitioner herein aggrieved by his non-selection and also aggrieved by the appointment of one Vasanth Kolkar, as Junior Laboratory Technician filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.64088/2009. This Court by a common order dated 06.03.2012 rejected the writ petition. The contention of the petitioner was that the said Vasanth Kolkar appointed as Junior Laboratory Technician was over aged as on the date of appointment and as well as on last date for submitting the application he was over aged i.e. 45 years. The petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.30609/2012. The contention of the petitioner was that the said Vasanth Kolkar appointed as Junior Laboratory Technician was over aged as on the date of appointment and as well as on last date for submitting the application he was over aged i.e. 45 years. The petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.30609/2012. This Court by order dated 15.07.2013, allowed the writ appeal and set aside the appointment of the said Vasanth Kolkar as Junior Laboratory Technician. In the writ petition, the petitioner had also prayed for issuance of a direction to the first respondent to select the petitioner in place of third respondent. The said prayer was not considered by the Writ Appeal Court and the said prayer is deemed to have rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed contempt in C.C.C. No.100326/2014 (Civil), complaining that he was not issued with appointment order which amounts to disobedience of the order passed by this Court in the above said writ appeal. The said contempt petition was dismissed observing that in the absence of any specific direction to appoint the petitioner as Junior Laboratory Technician, would not amount to contempt or disobedience of the order of this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed IA.No.1/2014 in Writ Appeal No.30609/2012 for clarification, which was dismissed holding that the judgment would not require any clarification. 8. The endorsement would indicate two reasons for rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment. One is that there is no specific direction in the order passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.30609/2012 dated 15.07.2013. In the order dated 15.07.2013, this Court set aside the appointment order of Vasanth Kolkar as he did not satisfy the eligibility criteria. There is no further direction to appoint the petitioner as Junior Laboratory Technician, rightly so because the petitioner was not the next eligible candidate in the select list. In fact, the petitioner s name would not find place in the select list or additional select list published in 2009. The second reason stated in the endorsement is that the name of the petitioner would not find place either in the select list or additional-list. If the petitioner s name do not find place in the select list or additional-list, he cannot seek for appointment. Moreover, even a candidate whose name finds place in the select list as a matter of right could seek appointment. If the petitioner s name do not find place in the select list or additional-list, he cannot seek for appointment. Moreover, even a candidate whose name finds place in the select list as a matter of right could seek appointment. Appointment could be made only on the basis of select list or additional select list. 9. In the case on hand, it is an admitted fact that the name of the petitioner was not appearing either in the select list or in the additional-list. There were more meritorious candidates than the petitioner in the selection process whose name finds place in the select list. Hence, I find no reasons to interfere with the endorsement dated 15.03.2016 which is under challenge. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the endorsement issued by the first respondent. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.