242wp682.11.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.682 of 2011 (Sau. Varsha Bharat Mitkari .vs. State and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D. D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ. Date : 24/02/2011. Heard Mr.A.P.Tathod, Adv. for the petitioner and Mr.R.N.Ghuge, Adv. for respondent no.3. This petition is directed against the order dt. 24.12.2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur whereby the Original Application of the petitioner came to be dismissed. We have taken into consideration the arguments advanced by the respective Counsel and perused the impugned order. Perusal of the impugned order shows that, in para 7 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has observed as under : 242wp682.11.odt 2 . “ A perusal of the final mark sheet (Ann.A-3) reveals that six marks have been allotted to R/3 she being the legal heir of Police Patil. Apparently the competent Authority was not authorized to grant such marks. If six marks are deducted from 35 marks obtained by R/3, it would come to 29 marks. As per the criteria adopted by the S.D.M., Washim (R/2), for selection of Police Patil, it was necessary to obtain minimum 35 marks out of 100 marks. Since R/3 is supposed to have obtained only 29 marks out of 100 marks, she was not entitled to be selected and appointed to the post of Police Patil. “ It is not in dispute that the respondent did not have power to grant six marks in favour of the petitioner and minimum eligibility criteria to be considered for the post of Police Patil was 35 marks. After deducting additional six marks given to the petitioner, without any authority of law, the marks secured by the petitioner comes to 29 i.e. less than the minimum required. Hence, the order impugned is just and fair. No interference is 242wp682.11.odt 3 . required in the matter . Hence, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE jais