FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5873 OF 2009 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of the Respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 was appointed as Physical Teacher by the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 4th August, 2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the name of the petitioner stands at Sr.No.4692 in the list of persons falling under category `project affected persons’ and the name of the respondent No.4 appears at Sr.No.5363 as well as 6154 which, in any case, was lower in position, the respondent No.2 chose to appoint respondent No.4. That has happened on account of faulty list submitted by the respondent No.1. Instead, the name of petitioner ought to have been shown higher in order of seniority and on which basis, the petitioner alone could have been appointed against the post reserved for `project affected persons’. 3 The argument, though attractive, will have to be stated to be rejected. That is so because it clearly overlooks the admitted position that Respondent No.4 acquired the necessary qualification of B.A., B.P.Ed. In the year, 2002 whereas, the petitioner acquired requisite qualification only in the year, 2005. The appointment of Respondent No.4 was not made merely on the basis of order of seniority appearing in the list of project affected persons but, because he had acquired the requisite qualification in earlier point of time. Moreover, the appointment of respondent no.4 was made on the basis of list submitted by respondent No.1 in the year, 2003. At the relevant time, the petitioner was not qualified at all. Only respondent No.4 was qualified to be appointed to the post which has been filled in by the respondent No.2. According to the petitioner, it is surprising that the respondent no.1 forwarded the list of candidates in which included name of respondent No.4 at Sr.No. 86. It is submitted that the list invited by the respondent No.2 was for appointment of Physical Teacher and a person possessing qualification of B.A., B.P.Ed. alone could be considered. Whereas, the respondent No.4 possessed qualification B.Sc., B.Ed. The fact remains that the respondent No.4 has been appointed only after due verification of the fact that he possessed necessary qualification to be appointed to the post of Physical Teacher. The Respondent No.4 has placed the certificate on record indicating his educational qualification which made him eligible for appointment as physical teacher. 4 The next argument of the petitioner is that the appointment to the post of physical teacher, in fact, has been made in the year, 2008. The fact remains that, that qualification has been acquired by the petitioner much after the respondent No.4 had already acquired the requisite qualification. In that sense, the respondent No.4 would be senior to the petitioner in order of seniority of `project affected persons’ duly qualified to be appointed to the concerned position. To get over this position, the Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Government Resolution dated 18th July, 2008. In our opinion, that resolution does not take the matter any further. That in fact reiterates the principle that the seniority list should be prepared on the basis of candidates having acquired the requisite qualification in earlier point of time. 5 Taking any view of the matter, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Petition is dismissed. (S.S. SHINDE, J) (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J) 19.01.2010. PLK/*