1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.563/2011 [Sheikh Abdul Zahir Abdul Hakim and others .vrs. Directorate of Technical Education and others] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 22, 2011. Heard Advocate Shri Nitin Meshram with Advocate Shri Shankar Borkar for the petitioners and AGP Shri A.S. Fulzele for the respondents. Contention is, respondent no.2 – MPSC could not have change the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement midway. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners fulfill the qualification as prescribed in the advertisement originally published and the changed qualifications are not applicable in their case. Reliance is being placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Parkash Gupta .vrs. State of J & K and others, (2004) 6 SCC 786 particularly paragraph 28 and the 2 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mrs. M.G. Khandagale .vrs. The State of Maharashtra and others, decided on 17.2.2010 in Writ Petition No.2/1996 (At Bombay). During argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has accepted that respondent no.2 – MPSC has altered the Rules. The Higher qualification being used are as per their amended Rules. It is not the case of the petitioners that MPSC is not following these statutory rules. It is apparent that MPSC has resorted for short listing as disclosed in the reply-affidavit by respondent no.2-MPSC. During arguments no reference is made to this short listing or its propriety. As the petitioners are not even selected candidates and we do not see any of their legal rights violated, grievance made by them against “short listing” is misconceived and unsustainable. Hence, petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande