1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6490 OF 2009 1) Babu s/o Dnyanoba Morale and others - PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and another - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.VT Sakolkar,Advocate for Petitioners; Mr.KS Patil,AGP for Respondenets. ----- CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 7th SEPTEMBER,2010. DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER: 9th SEPTEMBER,2010 COURT’S ORDER (PER: K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.) 1) Heard. 2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, heard finally. 3) The petitioners are Ex-servicemen in Beed District. An advertisement was issued by Respondent No.2 for filling up 232 posts of 2 Police Constables, fixing 15% reservation for Ex- servicemen in pursuance to the Government Resolution dated 31.8.2004. The petitioners appeared in the test, however, could not qualify for written examination, being failed in physical fitness, hence were not invited. 4) The matter was taken by the petitioners with others before the learned Member of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad (for short, M.A.T.) in Original Application No.605/2007; 606/2007 and 570/2007, challenging the recruitment process being against the settled principles and contrary to the Government Resolution. The learned Member of M.A.T. passed order dated 7.4.2008, set aside the selection process by following order : “31. None of the applicants from O.A.No.605/2007 has secured more than 50% marks in the physical test. As none of the applicants from O.A.No. 605/07 has qualified for written test by securing more than 50% marks in 3 the physical test, the prayers made by them are not capable of being granted. O.A.No.566/07 and 606/07 are liable to be allowed. The respondent no.2 is directed to restart the selection process for maintaining the reservation of 15% from Ex-Servicemen category, as per the advertisement dt. 27.7.2007. The selection process adopted by the respondent no.2 being against the true spirit of the recruitment rules of 2006 and contrary to the advertisement dt. 27.7.2007, the selection process is quashed and set aside. In the circumstances, parties to bear their costs.” 5) The petitioners felt that the order was not complied in its letter and spirit. Consequently, Contempt Petition No.387/2008 (22/08) was moved, urging the learned Member of the Tribunal to initiate an action for contempt, 4 as the orders are disobeyed. The prayers in the Contempt Petition were to punish, under Contempt of Courts Act, for disobeying the orders of the Tribunal dated 7.4.2008 passed in OA No.606/2007 and not to interfere with the orders in OA No. 606/2007. 6) The learned Member of the Tribunal heard the respective counsel for the parties in the Contempt Petition No.22/2008 and found that, after the Original Application was disposed of, Respondent No.2 – Superintendent of Police, Beed on 13.5.2008 issued call letters to the respective candidates, who were found eligible in physical test. The learned Member of the Tribunal opined, by issuing fresh call letters, the Superintendent of Police, Beed has complied with the orders passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also found some of the petitioners have responded to the call letters and some others did not. It was canvassed before the learned Tribunal that there should have been fresh process by issuing fresh advertisement and then to start de novo 5 process for selection. This assertion was negated by the learned Tribunal and expressed its satisfaction from the annexure of Contempt Petition that the order passed by the Tribunal is fully complied with. 7) It is this order of the learned Member of the Tribunal questioned by the petitioners in this writ petition. 8) On analyzing the factual data, it is explicit that the petitioners in OA No.606/2007 indeed appeared for physical test, but opted not to respond to meet requisitions for written test. Their slumber, is to their own discomfort, for which respondent no.2 cannot be blamed. The action of the learned Member of the Tribunal in rejecting the Contempt Petition No.22/2008 does not portray any illegality as de novo advertisement was not contemplated by the learned Tribunal and whatever was the omission or flack noticed in the process, was quashed. The order in OA No.606/2007 was in the nature of respite to the petitioners, which they should have coined by 6 responding to appear in written examination/test. The order of the learned Member of the Tribunal in Contempt Petition does not call for any interference, as it is in tune with the record and the documents tendered before it. No merit, writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (S.B.DESHMUKH) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/ fldt 7.9.2010