1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 715/2011. Nepalchand Mahadeo Rahile -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : 23.06.2011. Heard Ms. P.D. Rane, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Fulzele, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri P.S. Khubalkar, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 6. Ms. Rane, learned Counsel has pressed the petition only in relation to the directions issued by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal vide Clause-C of the operative part of its order dated 2 10.01.2011. She points out that the direction to appoint the present respondent no.3 Manoj as Police Patil could not have been issued and the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at the most could have directed respondent nos. 1 and 2 to consider his entitlement for such appointment. Learned A.G.P. during argument has pointed out that respondent no.3 is presently member of the Gram Panchayat. Respondent no.3 is not disputing this, but according to him, being Member is not a disqualification at all. Shri Khubalkar, learned counsel for respondent no.3 further urged that in the Original Application as filed, a statement that Manoj is duly qualified for being appointed was made and that statement was not controverted. In view of this position, according to him the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is justified in directing his appointment. Ms. Rane, learned Counsel in reply states that the claim of due qualification was 3 denied by the present petitioner by filing reply before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. We have perused the impugned order. It's perusal reveals that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has considered a chart in which marks secured by various candidates are mentioned. It has then found that Manoj has infact secured more marks than the appointed candidate namely present petitioner Nepalchand. In view of this position, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has issued directions to appoint Manoj as Police Patil. This Court has while issuing notice in the matter directed the parties to maintain status quo, and therefore, the present petitioner is working as Police Patil. As the challenge to directions at Clause-B in operative part is given up, it is apparent that his appointment stands quashed and set aside. There was nothing before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal or nothing is 4 before this Court to show that the eligibility of present respondent no.3 Manoj to hold the post of Police Patil was looked into and thereafter his name was included in any merit list. What is produced before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is only a chart which contains marks obtained by various candidates, including the present petitioner and respondent nos. 3 to 6. We therefore, find that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal could not have straightway directed respondent no.2 to appoint respondent no.3 Manoj as Police Patil. Whether his holding of post as member of Gram Panchayat operates as bar for that post or not, is the question which needs to be looked into by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. In view of this position, the petition is partly allowed. Direction issued by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in the operative part clause-C is quashed and set aside. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are directed to consider the eligibility of present respondent no.3 for the 5 post of Police Patil as early as possible and in any case within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order to it. Rule is thus made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd