1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3586/2009 Shilpa d/o Virendra Aulwar .. PETITIONER VERSUS The General Manager,S.B.I. The Central Recruitment & Promotion Department Mumbai & Anr .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri U.B.Bilolikar,Adv.for petitioner. .... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & R.K.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 17/06/2009 ORAL ORDER : This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to conduct the interview of the petitioner for the post of Clerk in State Bank of India an associate banks of State Bank of India, pursuant to the result of the written examination held on 1/3/2009. 2 2. It appears that the petitioner was declared successful in the written examination and accordingly, a call letter was issued to the petitioner for appearing for the interview. The call letter specified the original documents which were required to be produced by the petitioner at the time of interview. A call letter did not specifically called upon the candidate to produce the original of the receipt of payment of Rs.50/- paid towards securing application form for recruitment in clerical cadre. Since petitioner was not possessing that, the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the interview. However, on 26/5/2009, petitioner produced a receipt from the Branch Manager regarding deposit of Rs.50/- for the said purpose, despite that, the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the interview. 3. Mr.Bilolikar, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the interview on the grounds which were neither mentioned in the call letter nor were germane for deciding the eligibility of the petitioner to appear for the interview. On a query made by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submitted that the entire process of interview has been concluded, though the list of the selected candidates has not been displayed. In the light of the fact that the schedule of interviews is already concluded and the interviews are not being conducted today, according to us, relief of directing respondents to hold the 3 interview of the petitioner, cannot be granted to the petitioner. In the light of that, petition which is devoid of any merit, is therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [R.K.DESHPANDE] [P.V.HARDAS] JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp3586-09