FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4447 OF 2011 “Nileshmukar Bhalerao Salunke Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others” Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondents. CORAM :- D.B. BHOSALE & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE :- 27TH JUNE, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 28.1.2011 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Misc. Application No.300/2010, in O.A. Stamp No. 1110/2010, whereby, his application for condonation of delay in fling the original application has been rejected. 2] In the original application, the petitioner had challenged rejection of his candidature for the post of Child Development Officer, which he had applied for, in response to advertisement dated 21/7/2008. After rejection of the petitioner's application, his representation also came to be rejected on 14/5/2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Original Application on 27/7/2010. The Tribunal has rejected the said application for the FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4447 OF 2011 “Nileshmukar Bhalerao Salunke Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others” Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 reasons recorded in para.5 and 6 of the impugned order. Para. Nos. 5 and 6 of the order, read thus; :- “5. In the present matter apparently delay appears to be very little, but taking into consideration the fact that, challenge is to the rejection of candidature, even this delay is fatal. This is because during the time lapse when applicant did not approach this Tribunal selection process went ahead, somebody else was selected and appointed. The only ground pleaded for condonation of delay finds place in para.6. The applicant says that, even after rejection to his representation he continued visits to the office of respondent no.2 and respondent assured that, his claim will be considered. Ld. P.O. Has challenged this reason by pointing out that, once candidature was rejected in writing, written representation of the applicant was also rejected by the written communication, such a contention that, respondents had given oral assurance is not sustainable. According to Advocate for respondent No.3 this is just a pleading for the sake of pleading, patently untrustworthy and unreliable. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4447 OF 2011 “Nileshmukar Bhalerao Salunke Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others” Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 3 6. We do not find any hesitation to agree with the submissions of Advocate for respondents that, once rejection of representation was communicated in writing, it is not possible to swallow contention of the applicant that, he continued visits to the office of respondent No.2. and respondent No.2 orally assured applicant to consider his claim. Respondent No.2 is Public Service Commission and not an individual. Once this position is accepted, this is a case wherein there are no reasons for delay, much less satisfactory reasons, properly explaining the delay.” 3] We do not find any ground worth interfering with the order passed by the Tribunal in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. [S.B. DESHMUKH,J.] [D.B. BHOSALE, J.] grt/-