1 wp9847-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ttm WRIT PETITION NO.9847 OF 2010 Pravin Apparao Satpute .. Petitioner Vs. The Solapur Municipal Corporation and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.A.Kumbhakoni for the petitioners Mr.Nitin Jamdar for respondent nos.1 and 2 Mr.P.J.Thorat and Mr.R.J.Thorat for respondent no.3 CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 14TH NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged an appointment of respondent no.3 made by respondent no.2 on 14.05.2010 as Assistant Labour Welfare Officer. Admittedly, the petitioner and respondent no.3 along with four others, participated in the selection process in response to an advertisement issued by the respondent Corporation. The written test and interviews were conducted and the marks were given by panel members for oral interview out of 100 and for written test out of 50. The chart showing the marks obtained by all the candidates clearly demonstrates that the petitioner 2 wp9847-10.doc secured lowest marks whereas respondent no.3 was the highest amongst six candidates, who participated in the selection process. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the Government Resolution dated 13.02.1980 and submitted that the selection committee did not follow the procedure prescribed therein. Our attention was also invited to the chart showing the marks obtained by all the candidates at page 60 (Exhibit '3' to the reply affidavit filed by the Corporation) to submit that though for the interview marks were to be given out of 100, some of the panel members gave 101 marks to respondent no.3, which, was wrong and illegal. 4. We are not impressed with the submissions. From perusal of the procedure that was adopted by the selection committee and having considered the aforementioned Government Resolution, it is clear that 101 marks was total of the marks given to the candidates in the interview and the written test. 5. In our view, no error of law worth considering in writ jurisdiction of this court is brought to our notice. In the circumstances, petition is dismissed. (K.K. TATED, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.)