1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.516 OF 2008 (Ajay s/o Rajendraprasad Mishra vs. State and another) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : APRIL 24, 2008 Heard Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Thakre, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is against the procedure adopted by the respondents while filling up the posts of Police Constable pursuant to advertisement dated 31.7.2007. Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that initially Assistant Government Pleader made a statement before this Court that as per advertisement dated 31.7.2007, reservation is required to be 2 maintained, i.e. 5% posts out of total number of posts are required to be reserved for the project affected persons and out of that, three posts are required to be reserved for open category candidates and two posts are to be reserved for the backward class candidates and one for Scheduled caste category. It is further submitted that Assistant Government Pleader also made a statement before this Court on 11.2.2008 that out of three posts, two persons more meritorious than the petitioner were selected and one post was allotted to woman candidate in view of 30% reservation meant for them. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid stand was changed by the respondents at later point of time and in affidavit dated 3.4.2008 filed by the Superintendent of Police, Wardha, it has been stated that following persons were selected and appointed from the category of project affected persons : 1) Digambar Ruikar (at serial no.37 in the select list dated 31.10.2007 – secured 139 marks), 2) Sanjay Rathod (at serial no.38 in the select list dated 31.10.2007 – secured 138 marks), 3 3) Vivek Mahakarkar (at serial no.39 in the select list dated 31.10.2007 – secured 137 marks). It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since respondents are changing their stand from time to time, it is difficult to know exactly the stand of the respondents so far as select lists are concerned, which are published on several occasions. It is also contended that affidavits, which are filed by the respondents from time to time in the present petition, do not demonstrate the factual aspect of the matter and, therefore, may not be relied upon particularly because names of Digambar Ruikar and Sanjay Rathod do not figure in the first two select lists. Shri Thakre, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, disputes the adverse allegations made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and categorically states that final select list was published on 31.10.2007. In the said select list, the above referred persons, who are shown at serial nos. 37, 38 and 39, have secured more marks than the petitioner and, therefore, contention of the learned Counsel for the 4 petitioner in this regard is incorrect. We have considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel for the parties. It appears that the respondents have changed their initial stand and there are certain discrepancies in the affidavits filed by them. However, there is no reason for us to disbelieve the statement made by the responsible Officer like Superintendent of Police, Wardha in the affidavit dated 3.4.2008 that in the select list declared on 31.10.2007, the above referred three persons were at serial nos. 37, 38 and 39 and they secured more marks than the petitioner in the interview. In the circumstances, no case is made out for showing indulgence. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj