1 wp7713-10 sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7713 OF 2010 Ganesh Laxman Salunkhe ..Petitioner. V/s. The Secretary, D.H. Kumawat & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Tushar Sonawane for petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AG.P. for respondent No.2. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND U.D. SALVI, JJ. DATED : 14TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. :- 1. We have heard Mr. Sonawane, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 07/05/2010 rendered by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai thereby dismissing the Original Application No.1312/2009 filed by him. 2. On 10/08/2008 an advertisement was released in the local newspaper inviting applications for various posts like Civil Engineers, Drivers, Senior Clerks and typists in the Water Resources Department, 2 wp7713-10 Konkan Division and there were total 15 vacancies for the posts of driver. One post out of these 15 posts was reserved for O.B.C. The applicant had submitted his application for the post of driver against the reserved post for O.B.C. He went through the selection process along with others and following three candidates were eligible by the selection procedure for the lone post reserved for O.B.C.:- Sr. No. Name Marks 1. Shri Chavan Ketan Govind (Respondent No.3) 86.00 2. Shri Lohar Nitan Nimba 84.50 3. Shri Salunkhe Ganesh Laxman (Petitioner) 80.33 3. Consequently, the petitioner could not be appointed and the respondent No.3, who secured higher marks, came to be appointed as driver against the reserved post for O.B.C. 4. In O.A., the petitioner had raised two-fold challenge to the appointment of the respondent No.3 namely, a) In the application form submitted in column No.9, the experience as a driver was not filled and the column was left blank and, therefore, on that ground alone, the application of the respondent No.3 was required to be rejected; and 3 wp7713-10 b) The respondent No.3 had applied from open category and he could not have been considered for posts reserved for the O.B.C., though he belongs to it; The second ground has been given up by the learned counsel and he has confined his arguments only on the first ground. 5. The Tribunal noticed that column No.9 was left blank and in the said column, the years of experience the applicant had, was required to be mentioned. However, the Tribunal observed that on the sole ground, the application of the respondent No.3 was not rightly rejected. The Tribunal noticed that in column No.6 of the application, the respondent No.3 has specifically mentioned that he was having the experience of three years as a driver and had also attached experience certificate to the application. It was further observed that in the computerized application which was also filled in on the same date and under the signature of the respondent No.3 himself, it was clearly mentioned that he was having three years driving experience and also in the computerized application, it was mentioned that the applicant was working as a driver with Jaybhavani Transport, Ratnagiri. The original respondent i.e. the competent authority also confirmed that the respondent No.3 had annexed the certificate of experience dated 21/08/2008. For all these cumulative reasons, the Tribunal was not 4 wp7713-10 impressed that the application of the respondent No.3 was required to be rejected by the Selection Committee. We do not find any fault with the impugned order and having regard to the documents available on record, it could not have been said that the respondent No.3 was ineligible because he did not have minimum three years experience as a driver. Even otherwise, the finding of the Tribunal rejecting the candidature of the respondent No.3 would not have helped the petitioner, as he was not the second candidate in the merit list. The second candidate in the merit list was Shri Lohar Nitin Nimba, who is not impleaded as a party and he was also not a party before the Tribunal, therefore, the Tribunal could not have even in that circumstances passed an order directing the original respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner. 6. The petition is rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)