1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6939 OF 2009 Dnyaneshwar Dattatraya Sonwane ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. G.V. Mohekar, advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.P. Phatke, A.G.P. for respondents ..... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED: 25TH JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard counsel for the parties. 2 The Tribunal has found as of fact that as per the instructions which were notified to all concerned, the application was required to be accompanied with creamy layer certificate issued by the appropriate authority. That was the condition precedent. Admittedly, the petitioner did not comply with the said condition. 3. To get over this position, the grievance before the Tribunal made by the petitioner, which has been reiterated before us, is that the 2 recruiting authority accepted the non creamy layer certificate from other candidates at subsequent point of time and even after the cut of date. This aspect has been considered by the Tribunal threadbare. We do not find any reason to depart from the approach of the Tribunal. It has been rightly noted by the Tribunal that out of four candidates, three candidates had already secured higher marks than the petitioner. The Tribunal proceeded to examine the challenge on the assumption that the three candidates had not submitted their non creamy layer certificates with the applications. However, even in that situation, the petitioner cannot be appointed in preference to the said three candidates, who have secured higher marks. The Tribunal, therefore, considered the matter only in the context of 4th candidate Girigosavi Anil Ajinath, who was already appointed. The Tribunal, once again found as of fact that record does not support the contention of the petitioner that 4th candidate had submitted non creamy layer certificate subsequently and that too after the cut of date. That finding of fact does not deserve any interference. The argument of discrimination has therefore, been dealt with by the Tribunal. No interference is warranted. Petition is dismissed. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.) rlj/ 3