{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1542 OF 2009 Vitthal Gangaram Padalwar PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ....... Ms.Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for petitioner Mr.N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondent No.1. Mr.V.S.Panpatte, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 11th August 2009 PER COURT: 1. This is a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner on merit, by quashing and setting aside the communication dated 12.12.2008, issued by respondent No.3. By virtue of the aforesaid communication dated 12.12.2008, the petitioner, who was placed at serial No.1 in the merit list, was informed that inadvertently the petitioner had been called for {2} interview, but in fact the petitioner is not eligible as he does not hold the requisite qualification. Petitioner thus takes exception to the aforesaid communication. 2. It appears that pursuant to an advertisement, inviting applications for the posts of Shikshan Sevaks, the petitioner had submitted his candidature. As per the advertisement, 38 posts from Marathi medium and 8 posts from Urdu medium were advertised. The qualification, which was prescribed, was graduate plus B.Ed degree. The further qualification, which was prescribed, i.e. subject wise, was that the candidate, who applies for a particular subject, should have passed B.Sc. in that subject and should have obtained B.Ed. Degree in the same subject. The petitioner is thus aggrieved by the subject wise qualification which was prescribed. The petitioner, undisputedly, has passed B.Sc. with subjects Botany, Zoology and Chemistry. The petitioner, thereafter, obtained B.Ed. Degree in science and mathematics subjects. The petitioner had applied for the post of Shikshan Sevak in Marathi medium for mathematics subject. Undisputedly, as per the advertisement, the petitioner had not offered mathematics as one of the subjects at B.Sc. degree level. The petitioner, undoubtedly, had passed B.Ed. in science and mathematics. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and, therefore, had submitted his candidature in respect of seat which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. Drawing of the merit list was specified in the advertisement and as per the advertisement, merit {3} list was drawn as per the marks obtained by each candidate in B.Ed. examination. Since the petitioner had scored handsomely in the B.Ed. examination, the petitioner was placed at serial No.1 in the merit list. The petitioner accordingly received an interview call. The petitioner attended the interview on the date specified in the said communication, but the petitioner was not interviewed. It appears that thereafter three different call letters were received by the petitioner, informing him to attend the interview on the dates specified therein, but on none of the dates the petitioner was interviewed. Thereafter, the petitioner was in receipt of the impugned communication. 3. Ms.Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged before us that in the advertisement the eligibility or educational qualification, which is prescribed is graduate plus B.Ed and the aforesaid qualification is in consonance with the relevant rules. Subject wise qualification i.e. having passed B.Sc. in that particular subject is not specified in the rules and, therefore, it is contended that the educational qualification which is prescribed in the advertisement is contrary to the rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged before us that the petitioner had topped the merit list and, therefore, the respondents could not have later on turned around and contended that the petitioner did not hold the requisite educational qualification. As against the aforesaid submissions, Mr.Panpatte, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has urged before us that the {4} Government had permitted the Zilla Parishad to fill the posts subject wise and, therefore, this subject wise educational qualification was provided for in the advertisement. It is further stated that the subject wise educational qualification i.e. provision of subject wise educational qualification is upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2339/2007 by judgment and order dated 14.10.2008. 4. Undisputedly, the advertisement had been issued and pursuant thereto the petitioner had submitted his application. Bare perusal of the advertisement shows that the petitioner, as per the advertisement, did not hold the requisite educational qualification, as the petitioner has not offered mathematics as one of the subjects at the B.Sc. level. The petitioner, though was knowing the fact that he did not hold the requisite qualification yet participated in the selection process. The petitioner is aggrieved on account of rejection of his candidature by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner did not hold the requisite qualification. The petitioner. having participated in the selection process and knowing full well that he did not hold the qualification as specified in the advertisement, now cannot turn around and question the advertisement, especially the eligibility clause, which is prescribed. Moreover, as per the advertisement, about 46 posts of Shikshan Sevaks had been advertised i.e. 38 posts for Marathi medium and 8 posts for Urdu medium and pursuant to interim relief of this Court one post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate has been {5} directed to be kept unfilled, but the other posts have been filled. The other selected candidates are not respondents to this petition. In the event the petition is to be allowed it would result in quashing the advertisement and, therefore, entailing quashing of the appointments of the selected candidates who are not respondents before us. As stated by us above, the petitioner having participated in the selection process, cannot now turn around and question the eligibility clause, which is provided in the advertisement. The petitioner undisputedly did not hold the requisite qualification as are prescribed in the advertisement. In the light of that, therefore, we do not find this to be a fit case for exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the aforesaid impugned order. 5. In the light of that, therefore, the writ petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp1542-09