[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION W.P.NO.485 OF 2009 Mrs.Bhagyashri Shrikant Dandwate ..Petitioner Vs. Shri.Abhaykumar Pandurang Vankar and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.B.P.Aabhale advocate for Petitioner ... CORAM: BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM: BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM: BILAL NAZKI AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : APRIL 06, 2009 DATE : APRIL 06, 2009 DATE : APRIL 06, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Respondent No.1 was appointed as Village Police Patil which is sought to be set aside by the Petitioner. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application of the Petitioner. 2. The main contention of the Petitioner before the Tribunal as well as this Court is that Respondent No.1 could not have been appointed as Petitioner was a woman candidate and in terms of certain Government Resolutions, she had a right of preference. The order of the Tribunal discloses [-2-] that Respondent No.1 secured 25 marks whereas the Petitioner secured 22 marks. One can understand giving a preference to two equals, however, if Respondent No.1 was found better in merit than the Petitioner, the question of preference to woman candidate, would not arise. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. 3. Another argument is made that there was another Government Resolution by which the son of the dead Village Police Patil had to be given preference for appointment of Village Police Patil. Again the same test for giving preference, would be relevant. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the Petition. Writ Petition is dismissed. [BILAL NAZKI, J.] [BILAL NAZKI, J.] [BILAL NAZKI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]