1 wp6768-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6768 OF 2010 1] Dr.Atul Narayanrao Chandramore .. PETITIONER Vs 1] The Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary and others ...RESPONDENTS ... Ms.Surekha Mahajan, Adv.for petitioner. Shri K.G.Patil,AGP for R-State. Shri S.R.Barlinge,Adv.for Respondent no.3. ... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T.V.NALAWADE,JJ. DATE : 05/09/2011 ORAL ORDER: 1] Heard. 2] Learned counsel for petitioner submits that inspite of non- compliance of essential conditions of subject advertisement, names of respondents 2 and 3 were recommended by M.P.S.C. to the State Government and consequently, State Government appointed them. 2 wp6768-10 The counsel further submits that in the case of respondent no.2 Smt.Harshlata Vasantrao Borude, following objections were raised : [A] She was not possessing disability certificate as required in law at the time of interview. [B] Certificate of Teaching Diploma as prescribed under the advertisement was not produced. 3] In the case of respondent no.3 Milind Ambadas Kubade, following objections were raised : [A] Teaching experience is lacking in accordance with advertisement. [B] Service of respondent no.3 was on contract basis. 4] The counsel therefore, submits that recommendations made by M.P.S.C. were erroneous. Reliance is placed on communication made by M.P.S.C. to State Government on 10/6/2009 in this regard, 3 wp6768-10 5] M.P.S.C. filed affidavit in reply. We have perused the reply and considered submissions. 6] Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the issues which are being canvassed before this Court are not raised before the tribunal. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issues were pleaded before the tribunal and raised too. 7] In the light of fact of the case and issues raised before this Court, no interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted. Petitioner is at liberty to resort to appropriate proceedings of review before tribunal. The Petition is summarily dismissed. [T.V.NALAWADE,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] umg/wp6768-10