1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION N O.3830/2006. Vivek Vithalrao Bhonge ..vs.. The State of Maharashtra and another. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: ANOOP V.MOHTA and C.L.PANGARKAR,JJ. DATE : 9th JULY, 2008. 1. Heard Shri Anil Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri P.D.Kothari, A.G.P for respondent no.2. 2. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 18/8/2004, the petitioner applied, passed written test and therefore, the respondent along with others called the petitioner for interview. Though the petitioner was 3rd in the merit list but, as admittedly, he was not permitted for interview as he did not possess Police Verification of Character Certificate. A representation was made by the petitioner to respondent no.2. The petitioner 2 again appeared for personal interview but was unable to produce the documents at the relevant time. 3. This fact is not in dispute, therefore, there is no question of considering the case of the petitioner as prayed in the present writ petition. The reply filed by respondent no.2, specifically in para no.6, further concludes the issue, which is as under - “The petitioner has filed application on 12/10/2004 for grant of time to produce alleged certificate till 15/10/2004. The said application was not considered by the Advisory Committee, later on the same date i.e. on 12/10/2004 the petitioner had filed application along with police verification certificate, but same had not been considered by the Advisory Committee as the oral interview was already over and the petitioner failed to produce certificate at the time of his call for oral interview” Taking all these into account, no case is made out for indulgence. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE. chute 3