1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9295 OF 2010 Ku. Archana d/o Shankarrao Hatte & another .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. G.R. Ingole, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.G. Patil, AGP for the State. Mr. B.S. Deshmukh, advocate for respondent no. 2. ===== CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 24 th NOVEMBER, 2010 PER COURT : 1 By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the act of respondent no. 2 in not calling the petitioners for the personal interview and physical test. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though the names of present petitioners were found in the list of the candidates who were held eligible to be interviewed and called for the physical test, subsequently, the petitioners have neither been called for personal interview nor for physical test. 2 2 In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 it has been stated that the earlier list was prepared by shortlisting the candidates applying the criteria of 1:5. It is however submitted that the criteria was subsequently changed to 1:3. It is therefore submitted that due to change of the criteria for shortlisting the candidates, petitioners could not be held eligible under the list of candidates which was prepared by applying the subsequent category of shortlisting. 3 It is settled law that shortlisting of candidates is permissible. Only the rider is that some reasonable criteria is to be applied for such shortlisting. We cannot say that applying the category of 1:3, taking into consideration the number of posts, can be said to be unreasonable to warrant interference. Hence petition is rejected. ( R. M. BORDE ) ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb/office/wp9295.10.odt