1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 127 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7073 OF 2007 Govind s/o. Balaji Shrirame, R/o. Salgara (Bk), Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. ....Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others ....Respondents. WITH REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 128 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7098 OF 2007 Udhav s/o. Balaji Shrirame, R/o. Salgara (Bk), Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. ....Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others ....Respondents. Shri. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri. B.V. Wagh, A.G.P. for the respondent 1. Shri. R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent No. 2. 2 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 29th August 2009 PER COURT : 1. By way of present petitions, the petitioners seek review of the order passed by this Court dated 13th of December 2007 in Writ Petition No. 7083 of 2007, vide which the petition challenging the order passed by the learned Member of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, rejecting the original applications of petitioners on 13th of March 2007, was dismissed. 2. According to the petitioners, he was selected for appointment to the post of Police Constable. However, in view of pendency of the criminal proceedings against him, he has been denied an appointment. According to the petitioner, he was honorarily acquitted and as such, he approached to the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 753 of 2006, challenging the action on the part of respondent authority which did not issue to him the appointment order. The original application was dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby the present review application was filed. 3. The learned counsel Shri. S.B. Talekar appearing for the applicant submitted that the earlier directions, which were issued by the Home 3 Department, were subsequently superseded and it was not necessary for a person to be honorarily acquitted for being issued the order of appointment. The learned counsel also relied upon the annexure "B" to the application i.e. Government Resolution dated 28th of January 2006. 4. The Division Bench of this Court while deciding the writ petition in which the findings of the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has been challenged, has found that the department has considered the antecedents of the candidates as relevant factor and found that although otherwise eligible, petitioners were not candidates suitable for appointment in police force, who had indulged into affray on the street. The learned Tribunal has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Administration Vs. Sushil Kumar, reported in (1996) 11 SCC 605, where the Apex Court held that the appointing authority was justified in referring to criminal antecedents of a person and therefore, refused to entertain their claim. 5. No case is made out so as to warrant exercise of review jurisdiction. The review petition is, therefore, rejected. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] ssc/ra127.09