(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Review Application No. 111 of 2010 (In Writ Petition No. 25 of 2010) Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Bank of India Building, 3rd Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Hutatma Chowk, .. Applicant. Fort, Mumbai 400 001, (Respondent in W.P.) Through its Chairman. versus Sachin Bhagwat Gholve, Age : 27 years, Occupation : Education, R/o. Anand Nagar, Jeevan Chhaya, Nanded Naka, Udgir, .. Non-applicant Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur. (Petitioner in W.P.) ....................... Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate, for the applicant. Ms. Surekha Mahajan, Advocate, for the non-applicant. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 28TH JANUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) : 1. Heard Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant (original respondent in W.P.) and Ms. Surekha Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing for the non- applicant (original petitioner in W.P.). 2. A petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the present non-applicant, vide Writ Petition No. 25/2010, has been disposed of by this Court on 18th February 2010, after holding that the writ petitioner was qualified even under Condition No. 5.1.2 as he had experience of more than 3 years. Therefore, the applicant / employer was directed to consider his claim along with other candidates for appointment on the post of Drug Inspector, General State Services, Group-B, in the Food & Drugs Administration. It is not in dispute that the posts are under backlog. (3) 3. Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, has urged that the requirement of possessing experience of not less than 3 years is after obtaining necessary educational qualification as prescribed in Clause 5.1.1. The non- applicant (writ petitioner) obtained necessary qualification on 10-9-2003 and experience thereafter was only relevant. This fact has been missed by this Court while considering the table furnished on record in relation to his experience. The experience with Narketon Pharma, on the post of Quality Control Chemist, for the period from 3-6-2003 to 10-6-2004, has been entirely taken as relevant and on that strength, finding of fulfillment of experience condition, as stipulated in Clause 5.1.2 has been reached. 4. Ms. Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing for the non- applicant (writ petitioner) has invited our attention to the subsequent development. She points out that in Contempt Petition No. 13/2011, initiated by the petitioner / employee on 21st January 2011, this Court has directed the review applicant to interview the petitioner any time between 24th January 2011 to 29th January 2011 and that result of the interview was directed to be kept in a sealed cover. Accordingly, employee has (4) been interviewed but then, result of selection process is also declared. She states that many of successful candidates whose names appear in the list possess less than 3 years of experience and hence they do not fulfill the requirement of Clause 5.1.2. She has prayed for adjournment to enable the petitioner / employee to place these details on record. 5. We are satisfied that the subsequent event being pressed into service by Ms. Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing for the non-applicant, has got no bearing on the adjudication of the present review petition. The judgment delivered by this Court on 18th February 2010 needs to be looked into in the facts and circumstances then prevailing. Subsequent lapses or irregularities, if any, by the employer while conducting interview or then while preparing select list cannot be, therefore, relevant for today's hearing. 6. The appreciation of conditions prescribed in paragraph 2 by this Court clearly shows that while noticing Clause 5.1.1, it has been noted that the experience relevant under Clause 5.1.2 is "THEREAFTER". However, while applying these clauses and requirements to Annexure-A, in paragraph 3 of (5) the said judgment, the fact that petitioner / employee procured necessary educational qualification on 10-9-2003 appears to have been missed. In Annexure-A as placed on record by the employer, the experience of the petitioner / employee with four establishments was disclosed and the experience against establishment No.2 and establishment No.3 was not accepted. Before us, there is no debate about experience of the petitioner with the establishment, Shreya Life Scientific Ltd. It is for the period from 22-9-2005 to 23-9-2007. The only question is whether experience mentioned against the establishment, Narketon Pharma, at Serial No.3, from 3-6-2003 till 10-6-2004 could not have been looked into. We find substance in the said contention. The petitioner / employee obtained necessary degree on 10-9-2003 and hence his experience after 10-9-2003 only needed to be looked into. 7. When this experience is looked into, accordingly, it is apparent that the respondent in Writ Petition i.e. present review applicant was justified in contending that he did not fuifill the requirement of Clause 5.1.2. The petitioner possessed experience only of 2 years, 9 months and 2 days. (6) 8. It is, therefore, clear that there is error apparent on the face of record which needs to be corrected. Accordingly, we hold that the respondent / employer was justified in not inviting the petitioner for interview. The judgment and order dated 18th February 2010 is accordingly recalled. Prayers made in the Review Application are granted. Writ Petition No. 25/2010 is, therefore, dismissed. Rule therein is discharged with no order as to costs. 9. In view of subsequent development pointed out to us by Ms. Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing for the non- applicant (writ petitioner), and after hearing both the Counsel in that respect, we feel that the writ petitioner can be given an opportunity to challenge illegality noticed by him subsequently by approaching appropriate forum in accordance with law. It has been brought to our notice that there are total 32 posts for which the selection process has been completed. The petitioner / employee has competed for 2 posts reserved for N.T.(D) category. So, one post from the said category can be directed to be kept vacant for a period of four weeks from today, so as to enable the writ petitioner to take appropriate steps for ventilation of his grievance. (7) 10. Accordingly, though we have dismissed the Writ Petition, still we refrain the review applicant / employer from filling in one vacant post of Drug Inspector, General State Services, Group-B, from N.T.-D category, for a period of four weeks from today. This interim relief shall cease to operate thereafter automatically. ( S.S. SHINDE ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/ra111