FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9071 OF 2010 “Yogesh Uttamrao Sathe and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others” Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs.V.A. Shinde, AGP for respondent No.1, Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. I.S. Thorat, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Amol Waghmare, Advocate holding for Mr. Rajehdra Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. S.V. Ghute, Advocate for respondent No.6. --- CORAM :- D.B. BHOSALE & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE :- 4TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th August, 2010, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 329/2010. The petitioner, in the O.A., had challenged the selection list for the post of Lecturer in Govt. Engineering College, dated 21st December, 2009, prepared in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11/7/2008. 2] We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3] Challenge to the selection list is on two grounds. Firstly, it is on the ground that there was a change in the FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9071 OF 2010 “Yogesh Uttamrao Sathe and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others” Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 qualification during the process of selection to the post of Lecturer, Workshop Superintendent (Lecturere Level), Instrument Engineer or System Analyst in Government Engineering College, and secondly, on the ground that the MPSC committed grave error in shifting the name of respondent No.3 from the list of ineligible candidates to the list of eligible candidates, and issuing appointment letter to him, ignoring the fact that initially he was short listed for the interview and that he was not selected. 4] In so far as the first ground is concerned, in our opinion, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the selection list on this ground. Admittedly, the change in qualification for selection to the said post made was known to the petitioner even before he participated in the said process. It is now well settled that having accepted the change in qualification and participated in the selection process, it is not open to any candidate to turn around and challenge such change subsequently. Thus, the first ground of challenge fails. That apart, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal after considering the entire material on record and the judgments relied upon, that there was no change of basic qualification which was published in the advertisement. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9071 OF 2010 “Yogesh Uttamrao Sathe and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others” Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 3 5] In so far as the second ground is concerned, we have seen the qualifications of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 holds Bachelors and Masters degrees in Mechanical Engineering, and that he passed both the examinations in first class. He is also Ph.D. As against this, the petitioner has simply stated in the writ petition that he possesses the qualification mentioned in the advertisement. The petitioner has given no details about his qualifications, as mentioned by respondent No.3 in his reply affidavit. Even, across the bar, learned counsel for the petitioner could not mention as to what degree/s the petitioner possesses and whether he secured first class. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the second ground, as well. More over, we have noticed that the Tribunal has considered all these aspects in proper perspective and has righly dismissed the original application for the reasons recorded in the impugned order. Hence, writ petition fails and dismissed as such. [S.B. DESHMUKH,J.] [D.B. BHOSALE, J.] grt/-