1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2729 OF 2010 Kum.Suvarna Jayram Sakharkar & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... MrP.J.Thorat for Petitioners. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.V.S.Kapse for Respondents 2 to 4. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED:- APRIL 8, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. By this Petition, the Petitioners take exception to the selection process commenced pursuant to advertisement dated 25th January 2010 issued by the Respondent No.3 in relation to post of `Hamals’ to be appointed in the City Civil Court. Pursuant to the said advertisement, we are informed by the Counsel appearing for the Respondents 2 to 4 that for 102 posts of Hamals to be appointed in the City Civil Court, almost 19,234 applications were received. The advertisement clearly provides that the 2 selection process would consist of written test, physical test and interview. Considering the high response pursuant to the advertisement dated 25th January 2010, the Respondents decided to resort to short-listing of the applications. While doing so, the criteria adopted for short-listing was educational qualification. It was noticed that about 64 candidates who possessed Post-Graduate Degree have applied along with other candidates. There are 677 Graduates, 11 H.S.C. with distinction, 233 with H.S.C. First Class and 19 H.S.C. with Second Class. The cut-off qualification was fixed as H.S.C. Second Class. Applying that formula, the number of Applicants were scaled down to 1004 for being considered for appointment on the 102 posts of Hamals. The chart to substantiate the above figures handed over by the Counsel appearing for the Respondents is taken on record and marked `X’. 3. The Petitioners, however, submit that once the qualification has been mentioned in the advertisement, it was not permissible for the Authorities to change the Qualification Criteria even if they intended to short-list the number of Applicants. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar & Anr. reported in 3 (1994) 6 SCC 293. On the other hand, Counsel appearing for the Respondents has relied on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd.Riazul Usman Gani & Ors. v. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur & Ors. reported in AIR 2000 SC 919. We are in agreement with the submission of the Respondents that latter decision answers the controversy at hand. Inasmuch as there is intrinsic authority for short-listing of applications during the selection process. The cut-off qualification of H.S.C. Second Class was intended to only reduce the eligible candidates to manageable number for being considered to be appointed against the available vacancies. We have no hesitation in taking the view that the criteria adopted by the Respondents cannot be said to be irrational or arbitrary. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the approach adopted by the Respondents. 4. In the circumstances, this Petition fails. The same is dismissed. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)