168wp1147.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1147 OF 2011 (Gajanan R. Narwade .vs. Mah. State Council of Examination and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. Date : 16/08/2011. Heard finally by the consent of Mr.D.V.Dhondarkar, Adv. for the petitioner, Mr.P.B.Patil, Adv. for respondent no.1 and Mr.V.V.Naik, Adv. for respondent nos.2 and 3. Mr.D.V.Dhondarkar, Adv. for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner is regarding non-consideration of his claim for employment on the ground that he has not submitted Domicile Certificate, which is arbitrary and an act of high-handedness. The learned Counsel has invited our attention to the advertisement to urge that there is no indication therein that the candidate has to file any such Domicile Certificate. He further states that, after getting knowledge of such insistence, the petitioner has procured the Domicile Certificate on 24.6.2010 and submitted it to the recruiting agency i.e. respondent no.3, but no cognizance thereof has been 168wp1147.11.odt 2 taken. Mr.P.B.Patil, Adv. for respondent no.1 as also Mr.V.V.Naik, Adv. for respondent nos.2 & 3, relied upon the very same document to substantiate their contention that, in absence of such Domicile certificate, the claim of the petitioner could not have been looked into. Mr.P.B.Patil, Adv. further states that as the applications were to be filed in by 5.3.2010, the documents were expressly required to be of a date prior to 5.3.2010. According to him, in this case, the Domicile Certificate attempted to be produced is obtained on a later date i.e. on 24.6.2010 and hence, it cannot be looked into. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, we have perused the documents. The Advertisement issued by respondent no.3 on 5.2.2010 nowhere lays down the requirement of Domicile certificate. The learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 has urged that these respondents have acted as per the instructions of respondent no.1. We have also perused the relevant Government Resolutions dated 16th December, 2009. Its perusal again does not reveal any such requirement. The form which the candidate has to fill in is also produced before this Court as an Annexure along with the petition and its perusal again nowhere reveals any such obligation upon the petitioner. Mr.Patil, Adv. has made efforts to read 168wp1147.11.odt 3 clauses 4.1 and 4.3 in the advertisement together to urge that the requirement is obvious in the advertisement. We find that even if these two clauses are read together, the only inference possible is in relation to the backward class candidate that he should be a resident of Maharashtra. For others, there is no such requirement. In view of the above, we direct respondent no.3 to consider entitlement not only of this petitioner but also the other candidates who are similarly situated and to enlist them for recruitment, if they fulfill the other norms and also if they find place in the merit list. The exercise in this respect be completed within a period of eight weeks from today. The Writ Petition is partly allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE jais