(1) wp10939-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10939 OF 2010 Santosh Sahebrao Thate PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. R.B. Narvade Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the respondent/State. Mr. Rajendra A. Deshmukh, advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. .... CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 31st MARCH, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs in the present writ petition. "(B) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/direction to the respondent No. 3 to issue appointment order to the petitioner for the post of Jr. Clerk. AND/OR (C) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/direction to direct (2) wp10939-10 the respondent No. 3 to call the petitioner for oral examination to prepare such proposed list of Junior Clerks." 3. The petitioner's submission is that though he has successfully passed the typing tests in the recruitment process of the post of Junior Clerk, held by respondent No. 3, his oral interview was not taken and, therefore, the above reliefs were sought. 4. Learned A.G.P. pointed out that on the basis of the application form filled in by the petitioner, he was called for typing test, etc., as the form shows that he is a post-graduate. At the time of sending the applications, no testimonials were called. At the time of oral interview, however, it was found that the petitioner has passed only Higher Secondary Certificate Examination (H.S.C.). In the short-list, prepared by respondent No.3, the petitioner was included since he had informed in the application that he is a post-graduate. In the circumstances, finding that he was not competent to appear for the examinations, his further tests were (3) wp10939-10 not taken. 5. The documents filed by the petitioner on record itself shows that he is H.S.C. In his application, however, he had mentioned code No. 5 as regards column "T" i.e. educational qualifications, which, in the advertisement, is referred as post- graduate. In the circumstances, the petitioner was wrongly included in the short-list. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on "Sanatan Gauda vs. Berhampur University" AIR (SC) - 1990-0-1076 and "Krishnan vs. Kurukshetra University" AIR (SC) - 1976-0-376. 7. In the case of "Sanatan Gauda vs. Berhampur University" (supra), the petitioner therein had submitted his mark-sheet alongwith the application for admission in a Law College. He was allowed to pursue the course for two years and only for the final year course, the objection was raised that he was ineligible to be admitted to the Law College. In view of this situation, the Supreme Court held that (4) wp10939-10 the University was, therefore, estopped from refusing to declare the result of the petitioner's examination. In the present case before us, however, merely on the statement of the petitioner that he is a post-graduate, he was included in the short-list and thereafter, finding that he could not have been shortlisted, his claim was rejected. 8. In the case of "Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University" (supra), without scrutinizing the admission form, the petitioner - a student was allowed to appear for the examination and thereafter, his result was withheld on the ground that he has committed fraud. It was, therefore, held that the University was in a position to discover the truth by scrutinizing the admission form and, therefore, it was not a case of fraud. For the reasons already forwarded, the ratio is not applicable to the present case. In this view of the matter, the petition is summarily dismissed. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [D.B. BHOSALE, J.] NPJ/wp10939-10 (5) wp10939-10