1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.3216 of 2007 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.J. Khandalkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Khubalkar, AGP for respondents. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND R.C.CHAVAN,JJ. DATE : 25th July, 2007. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner's application for recruitment to the post of X-ray Technician was rejected in the process of scrutiny. 3. The petitioner challenged the rejection before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. 4. Before the Tribunal, the State disclosed its stand stating that: 2. .....In present case the applicant applied for the post of X-ray Technician and her 2 application was received to this office on dt.29-5-2007 and her registration no. is 144. After scrutiny of the said application of the applicant it was found that the mark sheet of B.Sc., first year was not attached with the application form. Without which the calculation of aggregate percentage i.e., [percentage of First Year + Second Year + Third year] could not be calculated. Hence the candidature of the applicant was rejected as per the clause clearly mentioned in the advertisement. Therefore the question of selection for interview does not arise. 5. After considering the record and pleading, the Tribunal found that there are similar cases where in the process of scrutiny some applications were rejected. 6. Since the petitioner had herself failed to produce entire documents which may have supported her, the petitioner cannot blame anybody for not selecting her. 7. In fact, the advertisement contains a stipulation with no room for ambiguity that all documents giving accurate information including mark-sheets of attempts made by a candidate should be 3 furnished. This unambiguous stipulation leaves no room for confusion that a candidate has to furnish certain documents and omit to furnish others. 8. In this background, we find that the Judgment of the Tribunal cannot be faulted as erroneous or illegal. No interference is called for. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge Judge |Hedau| 4