- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NOS.4768/1998, 4769/1998 & 4785/1998 WRIT PETITION NO.4768/1998 Hardip Singh Diwan Singh Hajuria, age 35 yrs., occu.service, r/o Gate No.1, Near Hanuman Temple, Nanded. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Nanded. Through its Registrar. 2] Shakeel Abdul Kareem, age major, occu.Accountant, c/o Registrar, Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Nanded. ...Respondents... ..... Shri S.S. Bora, Advocate h/f Shri S.C. Bora, Advocate for petitioner. Shri R.V. Ghuge, Advocate for respondent no.1. Shri S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for respondent no.2. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - 2 - WRIT PETITION NO.4769/1998 Pradip Kumar Shivajirao Jadhav, age 33 yrs., occu.service, r/o Ghatnandur Tq.Ambajogai Dist.Beed, presently at 1-Amogh, 15th Lane, Prabhat Road, Pune-4. ..Petitioner.. Versus 1] Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Nanded. Through its Registrar. 2] Govind Kathlakute, age major, occu.service as Accounts Officer at Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Nanded. ..Respondents.. Shri M.M. Joshi, Advocate for petitioner. Shri R.V. Ghuge, Advocate for respondent no.1. Shri S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for respondent no.2. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.4785/1998 1] Shirish Vasantrao Godbole, age 29 yrs., occu.service, r/o 39, Arvindnagar, Nanded. 2] Hardeep Singh Diwan Singh Hajuria, age 35 yrs., occu.service, r/o Gat No.1, near Hanuman Temple, Nanded. ..Petitioners.. - 3 - Versus 1] Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Nanded, Dnyan Teeerth, Vishnupuri, Nanded – 431 603. Through its Registrar. 2] Shri H.S. Sable, 3] M.V. Solunke, 4] D.M. Netke, All major, occu.Assistant Superintendent, Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Dnyan Teerth, Vishnupuri, Nanded. ..Respondents.. Shri S.S. Bora, Advocate h/f Shri S.C. Bora, Advocate for petitioners. Shri R.V. Ghuge, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 02.08.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Gavai, J.): 1] Heard counsel for the parties. 2] By way of present petitions, the petitioners challenge the appointment of respondent no.2 in Writ Petition Nos.4768/1998 & 4769/1998 and that of - 4 - respondent nos.2 to 4 in Writ Petition No.4785/1998 as the Accounts Officer and Assistant Superintendent respectively. 3] It is the contention of the petitioners that though the petitioners were duly qualified and though they have passed the written examinations and were called for oral interview, they were not selected and the respondent no.2 in Writ Petitions Nos.4768/1998 & 4769/1998 and the respondent nos.2 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 4785/1998, though not qualified, were selected. It is the contention of the petitioners that no reasons as to why they were not selected and these respondents were selected, are given by the respondent no.1-University. 4] In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 – University, it has categorically been stated that the respondent no.2 in WP Nos.4768/1998 & 4769/1998 and the respondent nos.2 to 4 in WP No.4785/1998 were duly qualified. The details regarding the qualification of these respondents have been given in the affidavit in reply. 5] From the affidavit in reply, it can clearly be seen that a complete transparent selection process was adopted by the respondent no.1 – University. The selection committee consisted of four senior officers. 6] The petitioners, according to their estimates, were highly meritorious, but it is not necessary that the selection committee must also accept the estimation of - 5 - the petitioners. In any case, no allegations, either of mala fides or favouritism are made against the members of the selection committee nor they are arrayed as respondents in the petitions. 7] In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. The writ petitions are dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) ndk/c28105