(1) wp336-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 336 OF 2011 Sanjay Kisan Dhalpe PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. Nitin K. Chaudhari, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V.Gondhalekar,A.G.P. for the respondent/State. Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, advocate for respondent No. 4. .... CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 19th APRIL, 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER - M.T. JOSHI, J.) : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of select list prepared by respondent No. 2 after carrying the recruitment process under the advertisement dated 22-07-2009 for the post of Agriculture Supervisor. His challenge to the said recruitment process was negativated by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 207/2010, vide order dated (2) wp336-11 20-07-2010. 3. In the advertisement, inter alia, selection process was notified whereby it was made known that an objective examination with multiple choices for 200 marks and viva-voce for 25 marks would be held and thereafter, on the basis of total marks, select list would be prepared on the basis of merit in each of the category. It is the case of the petitioner that while he secured 164 marks, respondent No. 4 had secured 158 marks, in the written examination. Thereafter, after the oral interview, respondent No. 4 was issued appointment letter by displaying the final list on the notice board. The final list (select list) showed that the marks were converted into percentage by giving 75% marks to the written examination and 25% to the viva-voce, is contrary to the advertisement. Further, the Government Resolution dated 22nd June, 2004 was relied upon for the purpose of carrying the exercise, but the same was already cancelled. Further, by the subsequent meetings, three marks were provided to the candidate who would produce Inter-University State Level Participation (3) wp336-11 Certificate in Sports. However, respondent No. 3 merely produced inter-collegiate level sports competition participation certificate and the mandatory criterion of participation of Inter- University Level Participation Certificate in Sports is not fulfilled. The weightage of six marks given is without any application of mind and, therefore, on these challenges, the proceedings before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was filed. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, however, rejected all these contentions. 4. We have gone through the merit-cum-select list. Upon ignoring the percentage criterion, it is found that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 obtained the similar marks i.e. 179. Further, the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 2 - the Divisional Joint Director shows that respondent No. 4 is more qualified than the petitioner i.e. (i) he is Master of Science; (ii) he has participated in inter- collegiate sports and (iii) he has participated in National Service Scheme. The copies of the minutes show that on the basis of various Government (4) wp336-11 Resolutions, weightage was given by converting the same into marks. As regards the participation in inter-collegiate sports at only University level, the Government Resolution dated 11th April, 2008 is quoted whereupon the weightage was given. Same is the case regarding participation in National Service Scheme (N.S.S.). The minutes indicate that the uniform process was applied for all the candidates for giving weightage, on the basis of the Government Resolutions. In the circumstances, we do not find any error in the reasoning forwarded by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [D.B. BHOSALE, J.] NPJ/wp336-11