1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3332 OF 2010 Santosh s/o Sitaram Supe ..PETITIONER VERSUS The Union of India & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr V.D. Sapkal, Advocate holding for Mr Y.S. Choudhari for the petitioner; Mr Alok Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General for respondent no.1; Smt. Anjali Dube, Advocate for respondent no.4. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 5th August, 2010 PER COURT : This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ restraining respondents no.2 to 5 from taking any further steps in pursuance to the selection of the candidates published on 23.6.2009. and also prays for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 22.3.2010. 2. Pursuant to an advertisement which came to be issued on 6.9.2007 inviting applications for empanelment of the L.P.G. distributorship at Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar, the petitioner submitted his application. The aforesaid appointment was reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category and since the petitioner fulfilled that requirement, the petitioner was issued with a call letter and accordingly on 23.6.2009 oral interviews were held. The petitioner was thereafter placed at sr.no.1 in the order of merit on the basis of the 2 interviews which were held on 22.6.2009 and 23.6.2009. The petitioner was surprised to receive a communication dated 22.3.2010 informing the petitioner that the petitioner had been rendered ineligible on account of the following deficiencies which were noticed in the form which was submitted by the petitioner. We may usefully produce the aforesaid deficiencies which were pointed out by the respondents to the petitioner :- "Item No.12 : 1. Work Experience at Super - Tech Hospital - Candidate has submitted work experience certificate from Jan. 2002 to Dec. 2005 at Pvt. Hospital which is not supported with any appointment letter or salary slip or wage/attendance register or any other relevant documents. Candidate is not in possession of the relevant documents and has declared that such records are not available. 2. Work Experience at Supe Memorial Hospital - Candidate has submitted work experience from 07.07.2006 to 07.11.2007 at Supe Memorial Hospital. Candidate is not in possession of income tax return of self/hospital of any year or any other relevant documents in support of his work experience at Supe Memorial hospital. Candidate has submitted only copy of shop act licence dtd.07.07.2006 for Supe Memorial Hospital." The petitioner while submitting his form and stating his experience pursuant to column no.12 of the application had stated that he had experience in the Super- Tech hospital and thereafter had experience from 7.7.2006 to 7.11.2007 for a period of one year in running his own hospital. In respect of his experience in the private hospital i.e. the Super - Tech super - speciality hospital, the petitioner had enclosed the certificate but had not enclosed any other supportive document. In respect of his experience of his running his own hospital, the petitioner had tendered the information and had submitted the registration certificate under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. 3 3. Mr V.D. Sapkal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the provisions of the advertisement, or the Rules, or the instructions do not contemplate filing of any appointment letter/salary slips, etc. and the insistence of the respondents on the petitioner not having submitted thereby rendering the petitioner as ineligible, was wholly arbitrary exercise carried out by the respondents. It is further urged before us that the requirement of submitting the income-tax return, etc. in respect of the self-employment of the petitioner was also not warranted as per the conditions. 4. Smt. Dube, learned Counsel for respondent no.4 has invited our attention to the general instructions which were issued to the petitioner and other candidates along with the form and which has been annexed to the petition by the petitioner. Clause 12 of the general instructions contemplates experience of one year in the capacity of Supervisor/ Manager/Proprietor/partner involved in running a business/organization. The aforesaid contemplates submission of experience certificate supported by salary slips, appointment letter, etc. The whole object upon insistence of the aforesaid documents appears to be to ensure that the statement of fact made by a candidate in the form is amply supported by such supportive material as would obviate any actual physical verification of the premises. 5. Our attention has also been invited by the learned Counsel for the respondent to the certificate submitted by the petitioner. In respect of his work experience at the Super-Tech super speciality hospital, the petitioner had submitted a certificate that he had worked from January, 2002 to December, 2005 at the private hospital. As per the requirement of clause 12 the petitioner had not filed any supportive document in respect of the work experience, apart from the certificate. Clause 12 obviously contemplates filing of salary slips/appointment letter, etc. The 4 petitioner since had not submitted any supportive document, the aforesaid work experience could not have been counted and rightly has not been counted by the respondents. In respect of the experience of self-employment from 7.7.2006 to 7.11.2007 the petitioner had submitted only the registration certificate under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act. The respondents in the impugned communication dated 22.3.2010 had pointed out that the petitioner had not submitted the copies of the income-tax return of any year or any other relevant document in support of his working at the Supe Memorial hospital. As pointed out by us above, the whole object seems to be to ensure that the candidate has had actual experience. All that the petitioner had done was that he had submitted a certificate under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, which would only indicate that the aforesaid hospital under the name which is stated in the certificate was registered under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act. The certificate does not prove the actual experience which the petitioner had. In fact, no other supportive document was submitted by the petitioner to indicate that the hospital was, in fact, functioning during the said period, as claimed by the petitioner, thereby to indicate that the petitioner had derived sufficient experience. Mere submission of the certificate of registration under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act would not serve the purpose of establishing the factual statement regarding the experience as claimed by the petitioner. 6. After giving our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, according to us there is no merit in the petition. Clause 2 of the note annexed at the foot of the general instructions contemplates the rejection of the selection of the candidate on account of non-submission of the supportive documents. In that light of the matter, therefore, we do not see any error nor do we 5 notice any malafides on the part of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. Thus, there is no merit in the petition and the petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/wp3332.10