1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 168 OF 2009 along with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2883 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 168 OF 2009 Mohammad Salim Nabilal Nadaf. ... ... Petitioner. Versus Solapur University & Ors. ... ... Respondents. Mr. Ashok B. Tajane for the Petitioner. Mr. Nitin Mulye for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : D. D. SINHA and A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 11TH JANUARY, 2010. P. C.: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of rejection of his application by the authority of the University. It is submitted that pursuant to the advertisement dated 17th February, 2008 published by respondent No.1, whereby the applications were invited for the post of Jr. Clerk, the petitioner had applied for the said post. The application of the petitioner came to be rejected by 2 respondent No.1 on the ground that the petitioner did not have certificates of typing speed of 30 w.p.m. (Marathi) and 40 w.p.m. (English). 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the advertisement there was no such condition mentioned by respondent No.1 and therefore the action of respondent No.1 rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground which was not stipulated in the advertisement is bad in law. It is contended that the petitioner was otherwise eligible and qualified to be considered for the post of Jr. Clerk and therefore the action of respondent No.1 is unsustainable in law. 4. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has submitted that the above referred condition was one of the conditions of eligibility for the post of Jr. Clerk and was displayed on the internet. This fact has been specifically stated by Dr. Rajendra N. Shendage, Acting Registrar of respondent No.1 in the affidavit dated 13th July, 2009. It is contended that since the petitioner did not possess the said qualification, the application of the petitioner came to be rejected. 5. Considering the rival contentions, in the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is evident that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification and therefore the action of respondent No.1 in rejecting the application of the petitioner, in our view, is just and proper and no interference is called for. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 3 6. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the Civil Application No. 2883 of 2009 also does not survive and is disposed of, accordingly. Sd/­ (D. D. SINHA, J.) Sd/­ (A. A. SAYED, J.)