1 wp 1935.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1935 OF 2010 Santosh S/o Popatrao Dhanedhar .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Ms S. P. Chate, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. P. More, A.G.P. for the Respondents/State. Shri Pravin Wagh, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & S. S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : . The petition has been filed by a person who had sought appointment to the post of peon with the Mathadi Board. It appears that, an advertisement had been issued, pursuant to which the petitioner and other eligible candidates had applied for appointment with the Board. A written test was required to be undertaken by the candidates and those who were successful in the written test were called for an interview. According to the petitioner, the mark list of the candidates was not displayed and, 2 wp 1935.10 therefore, the appointment of the respondent No. 3 is illegal. 2. The learned advocate for the petitioner has been unable to show us any provision of law which mandates that a mark list must be displayed by the Board before persons can be recruited to the Board. 3. Apart from this, in the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 i. e. Mathadi Board in para 6 and 7 the marks secured by the respondent No. 3 in the written test and marks secured by the petitioner have been mentioned. The affidavit also discloses the marks of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 at the interview. There is a wide difference in the marks obtained by the respondent No. 3 and the petitioner. In fact, from this affidavit it appears that, the mark list of the written test was displayed on the notice board of the respondent No. 2 Board on 18.07.2009. 4. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the petition. The petition is rejected. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] bsb/March 11