- 1 - Writ Petition No.245/2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The analysis done by the Tribunal in particular in paragraph nos.25 to 28 leaves no manner of doubt that the petitioner miserably failed to prove existence of order dated 29.5.2008. To get over this position, the argument canvassed before us is that this finding is perverse. However, no contemporaneous record has been produced before us so as to persuade us to doubt the correctness of the said finding. The Tribunal has examined the matter from different angles while reaching at conclusion that there was no order dated 29.5.2008 in existence. In absence of proof of existence of such order, the grievance, which has been brought before the Court by the petitioner can not be entertained. One other contention canvassed before us is that the advertisement indicates that preference will be given to women candidates. Indeed, Clause 6 of the advertisement dated 21.2.2008 refers to that fact, but it can not be overlooked that it was only a case of preference and not reservation for women candidates. Be that as it may, primary basis on which the petitioner ought to be non-suited is that the assumption that she was appointed vide order - 2 - dated 29.5.2008 is incorrect and thus no relief can be granted to such a party. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) (S.S. Shinde, J.) Dt/- 19.01.2010 ndk/c1911010