1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No.269 OF 2011 (Satyanarayan Ramswarup Sharma ..vs.. Under Secretary Maharashtra Public Service Commission & others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM:- D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED :- 31 st JANUARY, 2011 Heard Shri A.V. Bhide, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The writ petition is directed against the communication dated 6th October, 2010, whereby the petitioner was informed that the representation regarding his claim to be appointed as Civil Judge Junior Division came to be rejected by respondent No.2. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has applied for the post of Civil Judge Junior Division, participated in the process of interview, and selected. However, since the petitioner was at the relevant time was involved in the criminal case, the claim of the petitioner at the relevant time was not processed by the respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal charges by the criminal Court. It is, therefore, contended that since the petitioner was acquitted from 2 the criminal charges and was selected by the Selection Committee, he is eligible to be appointed on the post of Civil Judge Junior Division. However, since the respondent failed to issue order of appointment, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that on the earlier occasion he had approached this Court by filing the writ petition, which was disposed of by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation in this regard. The petitioner made a representation to the respondent, which has been rejected by respondent No.2 by issuing the impugned communication. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the circumstances, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the said post has been wrongly rejected by respondent No.2. 5. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was given the appointment order. It is not in dispute that the petitioner appeared to have been selected by the Committee, however no order of appointment was given. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was involved in the criminal case at the relevant time. Though the petitioner was acquitted from all the charges by the criminal Court, however considering the propriety and the sanctity of the post on which the petitioner was seeking appointment, respondent No.2 did not think it proper to 3 consider the claim of the petitioner to be appointed as Judge. We see no reasons to show indulgence in the matter, hence it is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE pma