wp959.10.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.959/2010 Sharad Premdas Gondane -vs- The State of Maharashtra and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri M.A. Bapat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK & P. B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 24/06/2011. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a prayer for setting aside the communication dated 19/03/2009 thereby calling the petitioner for interview on 26/03/2009. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to select the petitioner on the post of Monitoring and Evaluation Assistant. The respondent No.3 had published the advertisement on 29/11/2008 calling applications for appointment on the post of Monitoring and Evaluation Assistant. The petitioner passed in the written test and after he was interviewed, he was selected on the post of Monitoring and Evaluation Assistant. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was shown to be selected for the said post, he was again called for interview on 26/03/2009 by the communication dated 19/03/2009. According to the petitioner, the petitioner could not have been again called for the interview, as the petitioner was already interviewed and selected for the post of Monitoring and Evaluation Assistant. wp959.10.odt 2/3 The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed their written submissions and stated therein that one Ku. Smita Dongare had secured the highest number of marks in the written test, but she was not permitted to appear at the interview, as she was in the advanced stage of pregnancy. Later on, after Ku.Smita Dongare made a representation to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 realised their mistake and decided to call Ku. Smita Dongare for the interview along with the petitioner and one Shri Saidhuba More, who was placed at Sr.No.1 on the waiting list. It is the case of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that since a meritorious candidate like Ku. Smita Dongare was disqualified on the ground of pregnancy, the respondents had decided to interview the three candidates viz. Ku. Smita Dongare, the petitioner and Shri Saidhuba More again. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents did not commit any error in calling the petitioner for interview along with Ku. Smita Dongare and Shri Saidhuba More. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 had wrongly disqualified Ku. Smita Dongare due to her advanced pregnancy and after realizing the mistake, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 decided to reconsider the case of Ku. Smita Dongare by permitting her to appear at the interview along with the petitioner and Shri Saidhuba More. It is apparent that the respondent Nos.2 wp959.10.odt 3/3 and 3 had wrongly disqualified the meritorious candidate like Ku. Smita Dongare, solely on the ground of advanced pregnancy though she had secured 67 marks in the written test. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 rightly decided to call all the three candidates for interview. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to grant the relief sought by this writ petition. We, however, make it clear that since in pursuance of the interview held on the previous occasion, the petitioner was selected and Shri Saidhuba More was placed at Sr. No.1 on the waiting list, it is clear that the petitioner had fared better than Saidhuba More. Hence, we make it clear that the comparative merit of Ku. Smita Dongare and the petitioner may be determined on one part and the comparative merit of Ku. Smita Dongare and Shri Saidhuba More be determined on the other part. In other words, the petitioner cannot be placed above Saidhuba More, in any case, in pursuance of the interview, which would be held by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for granting opportunity to Ku. Smita Dongare to appear at the same. With such observations, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE KHUNTE