1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO. 4439 OF 2009 Kailas s/o. Bhagaji Khillare, age 30 years, occ. service as Police Patil, r/o. Bhilaji, taluka Jintoor, dist. Parbhani. - - Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sailu, dist. Parbhani. 3. Samba s/o. Baburao Hulgunde, age 27 years, occ. nil, R/o. Bhilaj, taluka Jintoor, district Parbhani. - - Respondents Shri B. K. Pawar, Advocate holding for Shri A. B. Kale, Advocate for petitioner. Shri N. B. Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondents Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 13th August 2009 ORAL ORDER : [ B. R. GAVAI, J. ] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the Order dated 3-4-2003 by which Original Application challenging the appointment of present petitioner as police patil came to be allowed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Police Patil on 7-5-2002. It appears that being aggrieved thereby, respondent No.3 herein preferred an Original Application on the ground that a F.I.R. was registered against him. The same is allowed. 4. The appointment was challenged on two grounds. Firstly that the petitioner was engaged in business of fair price shop and secondly that he was involved in a criminal case. 5. In so far as first ground is concerned, the learned Tribunal has found that in view of Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Village Police Patil (Recruitment, Pay, Allowances and other Conditions of Service) Order, 1968, the person was entitled to be engaged in the local business and, therefore, did not find favour in so far as first ground is concerned. 3 6. However, in so far as second ground is concerned, the learned Tribunal has found that petitioner was not adjudged to be a person of bad character. However, because of local criticism on account of making construction of the house without prior permission of Gram Panchayat, he was not fit to be continued as police patil. 7. We find that in the absence of conviction of the petitioner merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises, it could not have been held that the petitioner was a person of bad character and thus, disqualified to hold office of police patil. 8. In that view of the matter, we find that the learned Tribunal was not justified in setting aside appointment order of the petitioner. 9. Be that as it may, the appointment was for a fixed tenure and it has come to an end in the year 2006. In that view of the matter, the relief for reinstatement of the petitioner as police patil cannot be granted at this stage. However, since the post is vacant, respondent authority shall advertise the post. If the petitioner so desires and if he is eligible, he may apply for the same. If the 4 petitioner applies, the application would be considered on its own merits along with other eligible candidates. Writ petition is disposed of. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/wp443909