FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9760 OF 2010 “State of Maharashtra & others. Vs. Navnath Eknath Ranjwan and 3 others” Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. K.G. Patil, AGP for the petitioner Mr. P.C. Wagh, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE :- 25TH NOVEMBER, 2010. PER COURT :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 9th April, 2010, vide which the learned Tribunal has directed the petitioner herein to promote the respondents ( original applicants before the tribunal) on the post of Road Karkun with deemed date as 14th December, 2001 and to pay all consequential benefits. 2] It can be seen from para. 5 and 6 that the order passed by the learned Tribunal has been passed on the basis of the information given to the Court by the officer appearing on behalf of the petitioners. From para.5, it could be seen that the concerned officer himself has stated before the Tribunal that the proposal of the applicant No.1, Navnath Eknath Ranjwan and applicant No.4 Shri Raosaheb Bhaurao More was sent in the year 1995 and that proposal of applicant No.2 Shri Maharudra Namdeo Salunke and the applicant No.3 Shri Shyam Akhade was sent in the year 1999. Inspite of that, orders were not passed. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9760 OF 2010 “State of Maharashtra & others. Vs. Navnath Eknath Ranjwan and 3 others” Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 3] From the perusal of para.6 itself it could be seen that the learned Tribunal has found that the necessary qualification for the post of Road Karkun is possessing 10th or 12th Standard examination. The learned Tribunal has specifically recorded the statement of the officer concerned that the applicant Nos. 1 to 4 at the relevant time i.e. when the proposal of other employees referred in said para. Was submitted in 1995, were also possessing the requisite qualification. 4] On a pertinent query to the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as to whether any action has been taken against the said officer, on the basis of whose statement, the impugned order has been passed, the learned AGP has fairly stated that no such action has been taken. When the impugned order has been passed by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the information submitted to it by the officer of the State, no interference is warranted in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is summarily rejected. [R.M. BORDE, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/- FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9760 OF 2010 “State of Maharashtra & others. Vs. Navnath Eknath Ranjwan and 3 others” Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 3