1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 5075 OF 2011 ____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.:5074 OF 2011 *** Bhaskar Babasaheb Chadar VERSUS The State Of Mah And Anr *** Mr. Chapalgaonkar Shailesh S., Advocate for Petitioner Mr. V. H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. *** 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. 2. Petitioner seeks following relief: "B) By issuing appropriate writ order or direction thereby directing the respondent No.2 to consider and decide representation dated 24.06.2011 and allow the petitioner to the examination which is scheduled on 17.07.2011 for the post of Education Officer and for that purpose issue necessary orders." 3. At the out set, learned A.G.P. points out remedy of alternate forum. According to him the petitioner should have filed original 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 5075 OF 2011 ____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. application before learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. He points out that in recent past three petitioners had filed petitions before this Court, withdrew those petitions with the leave of this Court and had filed original application before the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits this position. However, he points out advertisement Exhibit- A, page 14. He also took us to the representation dated 24th June, 2011 Exhibit- D. According to the Petitioner, he had applied for the post of Education Officer and other equivalent post in response to advertisement dated 21st October, 2010. On the date of filing of the application, petitioner had mentioned the experience. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on 2nd July, 1993. Procedure adopted by Respondents was on line 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 5075 OF 2011 ____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. procedure. Petitioner had accordingly responded and filled in the application on- line. According to learned counsel for the Petitioner, he had mentioned in his on-line application that the petitioner is holding necessary experience. Despite this fact his application has been rejected for want of experience. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that on the date of filing of on-line application experience was not mentioned, however, subsequently with feed-back mechanism he had sent E-mail. Despite this, his name is mentioned in rejected list. On 24th June, 2011 petitioner has again sent his experience certificate through E-mail. According to learned counsel for the Petitioner, the petitioner is holding around 18 years of experience. 4. Even though learned A.G.P. has raised objection regarding alternate forum, we have 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 5075 OF 2011 ____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merit. Counsel for the petitioner fairly points out pleadings raised in paragraph 3 of the writ petition "the petitioner after submission of the form which according to the petitioner was duly filled in, the petitioner noticed that the column containing information regarding the work experience was submitted blank." The submission of the application by the petitioner indisputedly was on 7th November, 2010. In view of this pleading raised by the petitioner, in our opinion, the petition filed by the petitioner is without substance and deserves to be dismissed. 5. Writ petition stands dismissed. [S. B. DESHMUKH, J.] [D. B. BHOSALE, J.] Dated:15/07/2011. ans/5074