wp9347.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9347 OF 2010 Smt. Rohini d/o. Nivruttirao Shelkikar, R/o- C/o- N.C. Kamble, Kabir Nagar, Nideban, Udgir, Tq-Udgir, Dist-Latur. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company, Through its Executive Director, Prakashgad, Mumbai, 2) The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company, Through its Chief Engineer, Latur Zone, Vidyut Bhavan, Sale Galli, Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9285 OF 2010 Nitin s/o Nandkumar Jagalpure, R/o- Udgir, Tq-Udgir, Dist-Latur. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS wp9347.10 2 1) The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company, Through its Executive Director, Prakashgad, Mumbai, 2) The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company, Through its Chief Engineer, Latur Zone, Vidyut Bhavan, Sale Galli, Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.A.V. Patil Advocate h/f. Shri. V.D. Gunale Advocate for Petitioners in both the Writ Petitions. Shri.A.S. Bajaj Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in both the Writ Petitions. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Shri. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. We have considered the submissions advanced by Shri. Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, in respect of the compliance of the essential conditions wp9347.10 3 stipulated in the advertisement, under which the Petitioners applied for the job with the Respondent Company. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners passed written test, they were selected in oral interview but before issuing appointment orders, scrutiny was conducted and thereafter the Petitioners were declared as not competent to be appointed. The counsel submits that the said action on the part of the Respondent Company is illegal. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment in the case of Shri. Krishan vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 376, in support of his submissions. 3. After scrutinizing the material placed before us, we are of the view that the Petitioners have not annexed the required experience certificates, as stipulated in the advertisement. wp9347.10 4 In the facts of the case, we do not find any error or procedural irregularity in the decision reached by the Respondent Company in not selecting the Petitioners at the time of scrutiny. We are not inclined to accept the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioners. In exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, no interference is warranted. Both the Writ Petitions are rejected summarily. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/SEPT11