1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 805 OF 2009 (Sandip Mahadeo Dongre .v. State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for the respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are served. Shri S.D. Madke, Advocate for the respondent No.4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 27TH JUNE, 2011. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 20th June, 2008 in Original Application No. 470 of 2007 dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner. By the Original Application, the petitioner had challenged the appointment of the respondent No.4 on the post of lecturer in the subject of Arts and Painting in Government Institution. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.4 did not possess the requisite educational qualification or professional experience of three years in teaching. It was further the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.4 could not have acquired the post graduate degree in M.F.A. in the year 2001 as a regular candidate while working in Rishikesh Chitrakala Mahavidyalaya, Panvel and Vasai Vikasini Druk Kala Mahavidyalaya, Vasai during the relevant period in the year 2000- 2001. The respondent No.3, the MPSC had filed the reply before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal stating therein that the respondent No.4 possessed the requisite educational qualification and the professional experience of three years. It was stated in the reply that the respondent No.4 possessed the experience as an Assistant Lecturer for a period of nearly two years 2 and two months and as an Artist for the period of one year and seven months. The certificates showing that the respondent No.4 had the necessary experience, were filed along with the reply. The respondent No.4 also filed the submissions before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and denied the submission of the petitioner that the respondent No.4 did not have the necessary qualification. On a careful consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the material produced before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent No.4 indeed possessed the educational qualification as well as the combined experience of three years as was required as per the advertisement issued by the MPSC. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal considered the fact that the respondent No.4 had attended the regular classes in M.F.A. course by July, 2000 only and had finally passed the M.F.A. examination on 17.09.2001 after clearing the examination in one of the subjects in which she had failed during the previous examination. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal considered the fact that the respondent No.4 was a better candidate than the petitioner and was rightly appointed as a lecturer by the MPSC. The findings recorded by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal are pure findings of facts based on the material produced before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. They cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the communication received by the petitioner on 24.01.2011 in pursuance of an application made by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005 clearly shows that the respondent No.4 was not qualified for being appointed on the post of lecturer, is not well founded and is liable to be rejected as it is merely observed in that communication that the State should make an enquiry in the matter pertaining to the experience certificate of the respondent No.4. If at all the enquiry is held by the State Government and it is found that the respondent No.4 does not possess the requisite 3 experience, the respondent No.4 is bound to be out of service. However, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on the basis of the communication dated 24.01.2011. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg. 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1528 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 805 OF 2009 (Sandip Mahadeo Dongre .v. State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for the respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are served. Shri S.D. Madke, Advocate for the respondent No.4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 27TH JUNE, 2011. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Prayer made in the Civil Application is granted. Civil Application is allowed and disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.