1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3399 OF 2010 Rajsh Ramesh Joshi .-: VERSUS :- Sadanand Uttam Hivrale and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 06, 2010. Heard Shri R.G. Kavimandan, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri P.B. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent no.1, Shri G.G. Mishra, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2. Contention of petitioner is, petitioner possesses the qualification of Post Graduate Degree in M.Com. with Economics as subject and therefore, he fulfills the requirement of qualification as prescribed in the advertisement dated 01.09.2007. Grievance Committee has overlooked this fact which is apparent from the mark sheet and hence, the order is unsustainable. Shri Patil, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 as also Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 have contended that the qualification is M.Com., with subject of Cooperation and respondent no.1 fulfills that qualification. 2 Because of the Government Resolution dated 22.06.2000 the petitioner is claiming to be covered under its Clause 4[3], but then as the petitioner is not M.A. with Economics, the Grievance Committee has rightly overlooked that claim. Perusal of the order passed by the Grievance Committee shows that the Grievance Committee has found that the qualification of M.A. is equivalent to M.Com. However, it has noticed that the petitioner is not having subject of Economics for M.Com. Perusal of the mark sheet produced before this Court for M.Com. Part-I, shows that petitioner was having subject of “Economics Policy and Planning”. The mark sheet therefore is not sufficient to show that it was subject of Economics, as warranted by the advertisement. In view of this, I do not find any perversity with the findings recorded by the Grievance Committee. Petition is therefore rejected. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.