FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4501 OF 2011 "Manjula Lalsingh Gavit Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. A.G. Magre, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. N.R. Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No.5. CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] The petitioner challenges the selection of respondent No.5. The allegations of the petitioner are two fold. (1) that, the petitioner is more qualified than the respondent No.5 and (2) that, respondent No.5 is not the resident of the village at which the appointment is sought to be made. 2] In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been categorically stated that the village Bilmanjre and Kilwanpada are part of one and single village. Not only that, perusal of the cause title as given by the petitioner would also fortify the said submission. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4501 OF 2011 "Manjula Lalsingh Gavit Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 3] In so far as the merits are concerned, it has been found that the petitioner has received 40.40 % marks, whereas, respondent No.5 has received 40.89% marks. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. [M.T. JOSHI,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-