(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 11405 OF 2010 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Beed. 3. The Addl. Inspector General of Police, .. Petitioners Training and Special Unit, M.S., (Original Mumbai. respondents) versus Madhukar Babasaheb Garje, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Ex-Serviceman, R/o. Mahasangvi, .. Respondent Taluka : Patoda, (Original District : Beed. applicant) ....................... Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for for the petitioners. Mr. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate, for the respondent / caveator. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 20TH DECEMBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per R.M. Borde, J.) : 1. The petitioner / State is raising exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, in Original Application No. 1064/2009, whereby the Original Application presented by the respondent came to be allowed and the communication dated 29th October, 2009, issued by the respondent / appointing authority, has been quashed and the present petitioners are directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the respondent, appointing him on the post of Constable within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 2. It is the contention of the petitioners, that the respondent has withheld certain vital information in respect of pendency of a criminal case, while tendering application seeking appointment to the post. In column No. 11(A) of the proforma application, information was sought, as to whether the applicant was at any time arrested in connection with a crime registered against him, to which the respondent has answered in the negative. (3) 3. Although a crime was registered against the respondent and he was prosecuted for an offence and was acquitted in respect of the charges levelled against him, he was never arrested in connection with the said crime or any other crime. The information tendered by the respondent, while tendering application seeking appointment to the post, therefore, cannot be said to be misleading or erroneous. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence placed before it, and after considering relevant circumstances, has rightly allowed the application and issued the directions in favour of the respondent. We do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error while issuing the directions. 4. In this view of the matter, no interference is warranted in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, either under Article 226 or Article 227, of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of merit. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp11405