1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4517 OF 2010 Yogesh s/o Uttamrao Sathe and aother .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr.Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 and 2 Mr.L.S.Thorat, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr.Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.4 Mr.S.V.Gutte, Advocate for respondents 5 and 6 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 18th June 2010 PER COURT : 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, during the pendency of the Original Application before the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal dated 7.5.2010 declining to grant stay to the selection process. 2. Pursuant to an advertisement, which came to be issued, the petitioners who were the aspirants to the posts, had accordingly submitted their application. As per the advertisement, which was based upon the Rules of 2000, amongst the other qualifications which were 2 contemplated, was a Master’s degree in first class. According to the petitioners, they were eligible to be considered for appointment and accordingly, were vying to be considered for the said post. According to the petitioners, however, the respondents had applied a different criteria altogether i.e. in respect the Master’s degree in first class. The respondents had called for interview only those candidates, who had obtained 68% or more at the post graduate level. The petitioners contended, therefore, that different criteria for calling for interview could not have applied, particularly the criteria which was not sanctioned by the recruitment rules or by the advertisement. Reliance, therefore, is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, A.P.Public Service Commission Versus B.Swapna, 2005 (4) SCC 154 where the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms has held that there cannot be any appointment beyond the advertised number and the norms of selection cannot be altered after the selection process had started. It was further the case of the petitioners that respondent No.3 had been held ineligible and was ineligible both as per the advertisement as well as as per the norms which were applied for selecting the candidates for interview. Our attention in this behalf was also invited to the reply filed by the Commission wherein it was stated that the respondent No.3 was held to be eligible on account of the fact that respondent No.3 had acquired a Doctorate degree. 3 3. The Tribunal declined to grant interim relief to the petitioners but protected their interests by observing at paragraph 5 that any decision, acts or actions by the respondents – authorities would be subject to the decision of the petition, i.e. the Original Application pending before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the petitioners were not entitled for stay to the recruitment process which had already begun. 4. We have heard Mr.Sachin Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the petitioners with whose assistance we have perused not only the findings of the Tribunal but also the affidavit-in-reply as well as the advertisement and the norms which were applied for selecting the candidates for interview. Apart from the question that this writ petition has been filed against the order of the Tribunal declining to grant stay to the selection process, we find that the interests of the petitioners have been adequately protected as any selection has been made by the respondents – authorities would be subject to the decision of the Original Application. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us no fault can be found with the order passed by the Tribunal. This petition, therefore, being sans merit is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/4517.10wp) 4