1 W.P.No.7199/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7199 OF 2010. Sunil S/o Babasaheb Sumb ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.C.R.Thorath, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 02.02.2011. PER COURT 1. Vide this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus, for quashing the order dated 2 W.P.No.7199/10 19.5.2010, issued by the District Selection Committee in favour of the Respondent No.5. So also seeks directions to select the candidates as per the merit list for the post of Live Stock Supervisor. 2. Mr.Thorath, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Respondents have not followed proper procedure. The Respondents have not published the marks secured by the petitioner in the written examination. There was total lack of transparency and as such the selection process was itself bad in law. 3. Mr.Bondar, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the selection was completed strictly adhering to the procedure. The marks were published on the notice board. Total transparency was observed and the petitioner stands at serial No.4 in the category of 'low vision' candidates. There was only one post reserved for the candidate of 'low vision' category. 3 W.P.No.7199/10 4. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 on affidavit have stated that the list of selected candidates was published on the notice Board. The marks obtained by them were also displayed. There is no rejoinder filed to the averments made by the Respondents in the affidavit-in-reply. No malafides are alleged against the Respondents. In such circumstances, the said contentions of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 can not be disbelieved. 5. It has been stated at Bar by the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the Respondent No.5 was referred to the Medical Board and on receiving the report, the appointment has not been given to the Respondent NO.5 as he did not possess the said 'low visision' as is required. Even otherwise, the petitioner stands at serial No.4 and there are two more candidates above him. 6. In light of the above, no case for interference is made. As such the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order 4 W.P.No.7199/10 as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (NARESH H.PATIL,J.) asp/office/wp719910