1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO.2761 OF 2008 Kazi Mir Tareque Ali Mir Farooq Ali - - - - - Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others. - - Respondents Shri S. S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.B. Ghatge, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.1. Shri K. J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Shri T.B. Bhosale, Advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 23rd June 2009 ORAL ORDER [ Per NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] 1. Heard. 2. Petitioner's contention is that Respondent No.4 who was not in the final list of two persons, was lateron shown to have been selected. In the list of six persons, name of Respondent No.4 was not reflected as selected from Urdu stream. 3. The petitioner claims to have secured 44 marks in the written examination. Another candidate whose name was along with petitioner secured 38 marks whereas Respondent No.4 secured 40 marks. 4, Learned Counsel for the Zilla Parishad submits that lateron 2 application was filed by the Respondent No.4 stating that she had filed two applications which would mean that her case was to be considered for appointment against persons from Urdu medium and even from Marathi medium. She was interviewed and was selected. 5. Petitioner's case is based on certain information which petitioner claims to have derived under the Right to Information Act. Learned Counsel points out that the petitioner is not qualified to be appointed as the petitioner lacks two years experience after completion of B. Ed. course. 6. Counsel for the petitioner Shri Jadhavar submits that eligibility criteria could be relaxed. Learned Counsel for the Zilla Parishad is not inclined to accept this statement and submits that respondent No.4 was selected on merits. The appointment of Respondent No.4 would be subject to scrutiny of entire papers and the eligibility criteria. In view of these facts and the reply filed, we find that no interference is required by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 7. The Respondent Committee - Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad is directed to see that the candidate is selected strictly in accordance with the advertisement issued and rules set out for selection. Petition is dismissed. The order of status quo, granted earlier, stands vacated. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ) ( NARESH H. PATIL, J. ) 3