1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3956/2011 (UDEBHAN DAMUJI MALADHARI VERSUS M.S.R.T.C., MUMBAI & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri G.N. Khanzode, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Industrial Court on 07.06.2011 dismissing a complaint filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The petitioner claimed that he was eligible to be appointed on the post of Assistant Traffic Superintendent (Junior) and he applied for the said post from the Open Category. According to the petitioner, though he was successful in the written test, the petitioner was not called for interview. The petitioner stated in the complaint that though the respondents were entitled to call only 228 candidates for personal interview, they had called 265 candidates and the petitioner was not called for the interview. 2 The Industrial Court observed that one Shri Anantwar, who was placed at Serial Number 171 had secured 60.30 marks in the written examination and was a candidate from the Open Category. According to the respondents, Shri Anantwar was the last candidate called for the interview from the open category. The petitioner had secured only 57.60 marks in the written examination. Since the petitioner had secured marks, which were much below the marks secured by the last candidate, who was called for the interview, the Industrial Court found that the respondents had not committed any unfair labour practice by not calling the petitioner, who had secured only 57.60 marks. The judgment passed by the Industrial Court appears to be just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE