drp {1} W.P.No.9309/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION.9309 OF 2011 Rathod Gandhi Shankarrao PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.A.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.V.D.Godbharale, AGP for respondent State Mr.R.K.Ingole, Advocate for respondent No.3 ....... [CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 17 th December 2011 PER COURT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2011 vide which the services of the petitioner are terminated. drp {2} W.P.No.9309/2011 3. The petitioner was appointed as Live Stock Supervisor. The said appointment was subject to the result of the Writ Petition No.2360/2007, pending before the Nagpur Bench of this Court. The said petition has been decided by the Division Bench at Nagpur on 13.12.2010. The said petition has been allowed by the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur, however, while allowing the petitions, filed by the Maharashtra Veterinary Council, this Court has held that the respondents are entitled to be recruited on non graduate practitioners of veterinary science for rendering minor veterinary services only as contemplated by Notification issued u/s 30 (B) of the Act on the posts such as Live Stock Supervisors. The learned counsel for respondent Zilla Parishad relying on these observations submits that in the notification issued by the Agricultural, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, it has been provided that for being appointed as Animal Husbandry Supervisor or Live Stock Supervisor, it is necessary to have a qualification of two years diploma in Dairy Farm Management and Animal Husbandry with Veterinary science as a subject. The said diploma has been conducted by the drp {3} W.P.No.9309/2011 Maharashtra Technical Education Examination Board or various statutory Agricultural Universities in the State. 4. It is contended on behalf of learned counsel for Zilla Parishad that since the Diploma held by the petitioner does not have veterinary science as a subject, the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed. 5. Perusal of the advertisement, which is issued in the year 2007, would reveal that the only qualification prescribed for Live Stock Supervisors, is two years Diploma post SCC in dairy technology. Undisputedly, the petitioner does possess diploma in dairy technology, conducted by the Maharashtra Animal and Fisheries Science University, Nagpur. The only difficulty is that he has not passed the said diploma with veterinary science, as a subject. 6. However, by now, it is a settled principle of law that while making recruitment it has to be made only on the basis of qualification as advertised. It is also the settled position that a drp {4} W.P.No.9309/2011 change brought out in the recruitment rules after issuance of the advertisement cannot be insisted upon in so far as eligibility of the candidate is concerned. A reliance, in this respect, can be placed on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of “Madan Mohan Sharma V/s State of Rajasthan” (2008) 3 SCC 724. 7. It is undisputed that the petitioner does possess qualification as was prescribed in the advertisement. The termination is only on the ground that the qualification, which is subsequently provided vide notification dated 27.08.2009, is not being possessed by the petitioner. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, in the judgment cited supra, we find that the stand taken by the respondents is not tenable. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clauses “B” and “C”. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [B.R.GAVAI, J.] drp/B11/wp9309-1