1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 259 OF 2011 (Madhukar G. Savate vs. M.S.R.T.C. & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. JUNE 28, 2011. Heard Shri Jagdale, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Charpe, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. In view of the prayer made, service upon Respondent No. 3 is dispensed with. Shri Jagdale, learned counsel states that the petitioner was working as an Apprentice and he has qualification as Sheet Metal Worker obtained from Industrial Training Institute, Umarkhed. The posts in workshop of Respondents No. 1 & 2 required this qualification, were advertised, petitioner applied in pursuance thereof, cleared written test, trade test but was not called for personal interview. He further states that Respondent No. 3, who is an employee of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) only has been selected on the post on which the petitioner was working. According to him, Respondent No. 3 does not hold the qualification of 2 Sheet Metal Worker. He, therefore, states that the grievance of the petitioner will be satisfied if Respondent No.1 through its V.C.M.D. holds enquiry into the entire recruitment process. Shri Charpe, learned counsel states that Respondent No. 3 has not been appointed but one Jeevan Shivraoji Uikey and Vilas Shankarrao Sutar, who have been selected and appointed. He states that these persons are not parties before this Court. According to him, interviews were over in December 2010 and appointments have been made in May 2011. He, therefore, states that grievance made in the petition is rendered infructuous. In view of the specific contention made by the petitioner that open selections were held i.e. selection was made from open market but only the employees who were already working with MSRTC have been selected, though they did not possess necessary qualification and limited grievance before this Court, we direct Respondent No. 1 to hold appropriate enquiry in the matter as early as possible and in any case within a period of four months from today. The petitioner shall also be given an opportunity and his statement shall also be recorded in the enquiry. Notice of enquiry shall be served upon the petitioner through R.P.A.D. on his address given in the petition. If the petitioner does not receive any notice of enquiry within a period of two months or if he does not receive copy of report by 3 R.P.A.D. on his address by 15th December 2011, liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court in the matter. With these directions and observations, writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.