1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.2441/2010 Vishnuvenkatesh s/o Mahadeo Dhage ...Versus... Managing Director, Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited, Mumbai and others _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ [Shri S.K./P.S. Verma, Advs. for petitioner] [Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Adv. for respdt. nos.1 to 3] [Shri S.B. Ahirkar, AGP for respdt. no. 4] [Shri M.D. Lakhey, Adv. for respdt. nos.5,7,8, 10 to 13,16 to 21,24,27 & 29] CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATE : 09.11.2011 Heard. As we find that contention about making 29 appointments against the alleged 12 notified vacancies is without any support, we are not examining that contention in the present matter. We permit the petitioner to raise appropriate challenge in relation to the same after verifying necessary facts. However, we place it on record that according to respondent nos.1 to 3 there were two advertisements and recruitment made is against the posts advertised only. 2 The basic contention of the petitioner is that post for Executive Engineer advertised did not encompass all available faculties and therefore, the petitioner who holds qualification in Computer Science was denied opportunity of consideration. Support is being taken from the rules which prescribe qualification for the post of Executive Engineer (Generation) amongst other qualifications. Qualification in Computer Science is also specified therein. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that thus by not including qualification in advertisements, petitioner and other similarly situated Engineers, holding qualification in Computer Science are rendered unfit and ineligible to apply. He contends that it is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 has invited our attention to reply affidavit to urge that as per the requirement the respondents needed Engineers in Electrical, Electronics and Mechanical fields and hence, advertisement was issued looking to that need. He has invited our attention to the statement made in paragraph no.12 to show that the ratio is already decided and accordingly advertisement was issued. During argument, he has shown to this Court office note to show bifurcation inter se between Executive Engineers. As per that office note 30% posts are for Electrical Engineers, 20% 3 for Mechanical Engineers, 30% for Instrumentation, 15% for Electronics and 5% for Computer. In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that this document is not supplied to the petitioner and he has further contended that the seniority list of Executive Engineers is only one. We find that advertisement is for direct recruitment from open market and departmental candidates are also eligible to apply. Seniority list is, therefore, irrelevant. Though copy of office note is not supplied, necessary base for the said document is already disclosed on affidavit in paragraph no.12. The advertisement was issued to satisfy the job requirement and we do not see any mala fides. Writ Petition is, therefore, rejected. No order as to costs. Office note supplied by the learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 is taken on record and marked X for identification. JUDGE JUDGE ssw