1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 4229 of 2008 Shri Raju v. District Selection Committee and ors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr H.D. Dangre, Adv for petitioner Mr M.A. Sable, Adv fror respdts 1,2 Mr N. Khubalkar, AGP for R-3 Mr P.S. Patil, Adv for R-4 Coram : D.D. Sinha and A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 15th June 2009 1. Heard Mr H.D. Dangre, learned counsel for petitioner; Mr M.A. Sable, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 & 2; Mr N. Khubalkar, learned AGP for respondent no.3 and Mr P.S. Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.4. 2. Grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is in respect of selection of respondent no. 4 for the post of Senior Assistant (Clerk Grade) on the ground that respondent no. 4 did not have necessary educational qualification as stipulated in the advertisement i.e. Degree of graduation. It is contended that merely because there was discretion vested in 2 the Competent Authority by virtue of Government Resolution dated 5th October 1989 to relax the condition of eligibility criteria that by itself does not make respondent no. 4 eligible. Consequently, the selection of respondent no.4 is bad in law. 3. Mr Sable, learned counsel for Zilla Parishad has submitted that it is no doubt true that in the advertisement the qualification mentioned for the post is graduation, however, the Government Resolution dated 5th October 1989, which is binding on the Authority, contemplates that so far as 15% reservation for ex-serviceman in class-III and class_IV categories is concerned, the person who hasserved in Army for fifteen years or who was awarded with Indian Army Special Certificate of Education, in such cases condition of minimum educational qualification can be relaxed. It is further contended that respondent no. 4 and petitioner – both participated in the process of selection, however, respondent no. 4 has secured more marks in written as well as oral examination and, therefore, he was selected and given employment. 4. Considered the rival contentions and perused the advertisement as well as Government Resolution dated 5th October 1989. The discretion exercised by respondent Zilla Parishad by relaxing eligibility criteria, in our view, is consistent with the Government Resolution and, therefore, no interference is called for. It is not in dispute that respondent no. 4 has 3 secured more marks in written test as well as in oral interview than the petitioner. Therefore, petition suffers from lack of substance. The same is accordingly dismissed. Judge Judge hsj