1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1862 OF 2001 Rameshwar s/o. Bapurao Madan, age 31 years, occ. police patil and agriculture, R/o. At and post Keligavhan, taluka Badnapur, District Jalna. - - - .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalna. 3. The Tahsildar, Badnapur, district Jalna. 4. Kailash s/o. Ramkishan Madan, age major, occ. agriculture, R/o. At & post Keligavhan, taluka Badnapur, dist.Jalna. .. Respondents Shri P. D. Bachate, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Umakant Patil, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for Respondents Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 8th June, 2009. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1, The petitioner applied for appointment as Village Police Patil. The petitioner was considered alongwith Respondent No.4. The petitioner was selected as Police Patil. The appointment was challenged by filing an application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad by Respondent No.4, one of the contender. By an order dated 25-4-2002, the Tribunal quashed and set aside appointment of the petitioner. 2. The respondents have filed affidavit in reply and supported the order passed by the Tribunal and the selection of the petitioner. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the orders passed by this Court wherein ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause [E] was running since the year 2001 and confirmed on 6-7-2001 by granting Rule. He has been working as police patil of the village. Learned Counsel submitted that criminal case for offence punishable under sections 143, 148, 149 r.w. s. 324, 323,504 and 506 of I.P.Code was pending against the respondent No.4 and that is why he was kept out of consideration, according to the Tribunal. The Counsel submitted that on merit, petitioner's case was much better and the authority, therefore, selected the petitioner and without any justifiable reason, the Tribunal interfered in the selection process and set aside the appointment of the petitioner. 3 4. We have considered submissions of the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader Shri Umakant Patil, who has taken us through affidavit in reply and the policy of the State in appointment of village police patil. 5. We have perused the impugned order, affidavit in reply and the necessary documents placed on record. We are convinced that the reasons adopted by the Tribunal are not sustainable. We do not find any error or fault in the selection process undertaken by the authority. Substitution of view of the Tribunal in favour of one candidate compared to the other on the ground as mentioned in the order could not be good reason for setting aside the appointment order issued in favour of the petitioner. 6. The authority did find the petitioner to be more suitable than the respondent No.4, and, therefore, we do not find any good material against the petitioner to interfere with the stand adopted by the respondent authority. 7. According to the Counsel appearing for the petitioner, under the interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has been working as village police patil. Under the scheme, it is for the State authority to continue or to discontinue village police patil as initial order for appointment of police patil is said to be of 5 years which is said to be a renewal order. We are convinced that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 8. We accordingly quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25.4.2001 in O.A.No. 286 of 1998 passed by the Maharashtra 4 Administrative Tribunal. We uphold the appointment of petitioner as village police patil as done initially by the authorities. We make it clear that the respondents are entitled to reassess the issue of appointment of village police patil and decide strictly in accordance with law or if under the scheme it is permissible to continue the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, if the petitioner satisfies norms. We express no opinion on that aspect of the matter. 9. Rule is made absolute in terms of above. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] pnk/wp186201