1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3513 OF 2009 PETITIIONERS : 1] Rajeshwar Vithalrao Balbudhe Aged about 34 years, R/o Injapur, Tah. Wardha, Dist. Wardha. 2] Praveen S/o Darnodarrao Gunjankar, Aged about 31 years, R/o A.G.Maidankar, Plot No. 40/1, Vijay Colony, Tower Line Road, Kathora Naka, Amravati. 3] Kailash S/o Vithalrao Golhar, Aged 33 years, R/o Gajanan Ward, No.9, Near Punjab Colony, Wardha. ...VERSUS... RESPONDENTS : 1] Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Wahatuk Bhawan, Dr. Anand Nayar Marg, Bhaikhala, Mumbai Central. 2] Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through its Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Wardha. 3] Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through its Regional Manager, Main Bus Station, Ganesh Peth, Nagpur. 4] Vishal S/o Madhukar Nagrale Aged about 30 years, R/o House NO.21, Ayushya Nagar, Durgapur Road, Chandrapur. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- 2 Mr. C.V.Jagdale, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. S.C.Mehadia, Advocate for Respondents nos.1 to 3. C ORAM : D.B.BHOSALE ; and PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATED : 23rd June, 2010. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has instructions to press this petition only on behalf of petitioner no.1. He submits that the right of the petitioner No.1 to appear for oral interview was wrongly denied by the respondents. He invited our attention to the Circular dated 24/12/1998 and submitted that a distinction between the matriculate and the non-matriculate candidates made by the concerned authority, while preparing the list of selected candidates, was wrong and illegal. 3. We have perused the material placed before the Court including submissions filed on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3. From perusal of the circulars, it appears that a criteria of “matriculate and non-matriculate” candidates was applied for short listing the candidates as provided for in the said Circular. We do not find any error on the part of the respondents in placing the matriculate candidates above the non-matriculate candidates. It appears that the petitioner no.1 had cleared screening and driving tests and he was placed at serial no. 86 in the list of selected candidates, who cleared these tests. There were only 17 posts and as per the Circular dated 24/12/1998 they invited the candidates in 3 the ratio of 1 : 5 and as such they invited total 85 candidates for personal interview and since petitioner no.1 was at serial no.86, he was not called by the respondents for interview. 4. From perusal of affidavit/submissions of respondents and circulars annexed thereto, we are satisfied that respondent no.1 to 3 have not committed error in the process of selection and their decision not to invite petitioner no.1 for personal interview, was correct and deserves no interference in this petition. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale