(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6892 OF 2008 Bharati s/o. Shridharrao Pophali. .. Petitioner. versus The Maharashtra State, through its Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai, and 5 others. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. Respondent no.4 served (Absent). Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate, for respondent nos.5 and 6. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 11TH AUGUST 2009. (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the selection process conducted for appointment of Teachers in respondent no.4 School. 2. Admittedly, the selection process is conducted by the management. The management is not a party to the present petition. The petition, therefore, could have been dismissed on the short ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. 3. Apart from that, it could be seen that the only contention of the petitioner is that though there was representation in the interview calls, that the written examination would be held and that though the written examination was held, the performance was cancelled only to deprive an appointment in favour of the petitioner. 4. From the perusal of page 20 of the petition, it can be seen that the performance of all the candidates appearing for all the subjects was cancelled on the ground that the local candidates had received the written papers and complaint to that effect was received by the School Committee and accordingly, the School Committee resolved to cancel the performance. We find that the reason given is cogent and sound. 5. Apart from that, if the allegation of the petitioner is that this was done by the School Committee with mala fide intention, so as to deprive him of an appointment, there are no averments in the petition with respect to the mala fides and, in any case, the persons, against whom allegations of mala fides are attributed, are not party to the present (3) petition. It is settled law, that unless the persons against whom allegations of mala fide are attributed, are made party respondent and unless specific allegations are made against such persons, the allegations regarding mala fides cannot be permitted to be advanced by a party. 6. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp6892