0605mca102.10.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR M.C.A. NO. 102/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3729 OF 2009 Vijay Eknathrao Patil Vs. The Zilla Parishad, Bhandara & another Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: D. D. SINHA & F. M. REIS, JJ. DATED : 06/05/2010 Heard Mr. P. D. Meghe, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms M. P. Munshi, learned Counsel for the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner states that the challenge raised in the petition by the petitioner was not in respect of non selection of the petitioner by the Selection Committee for the post of Civil Engineer Assistant, simplicitor. It is submitted that the petitioner has appeared in the written examination and secured 75 marks out of 180, and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been called for interview. It is contended that inaction on the part of the respondent in not calling the petitioner for interview is without any justification and not sustainable in law. Ms Munshi, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner did not secure minimum percentage of marks to qualify the petitioner to be called for interview. It is therefore, submitted that the 0605mca102.10.odt 2/2 petitioner was not called for interview in view of this aspect of the matter. Considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel and perused the impugned order. Perusal of order dated 07/12/2009 clearly shows that the grievance of the petitioner is about non-selection for the post of Civil Engineer Assistant by the Selection Committee. We may observe that since the petitioner did not secure minimum percentage of marks in the written examination to qualify himself to be called for interview, the grievance which is made by the petitioner in review petition against the order dated 07/12/2009 calls for no interference. The review application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE wwl