1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1190 OF 2010 Nirmalabai W/o Dadarao Pawar .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri Amol N. Kakade, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri M. B. Kolpe, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2010. PER COURT : . This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 25.11.2009 in Original Application No. 980/2009. 2. Pursuant to the proclamation issued by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 and others 2 were the candidates who had submitted their candidature for appointment as a police patil. The respondent No. 4 came to be appointed, while the applications of others including that of the petitioner came to be rejected. The petitioner filed original application before the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and prayed for quashing and setting aside the order by which the respondent No. 4 came to be appointed as a police patil. Curiously, the petitioner did not pray for her appointment as police patil. The petitioner has thus accepted without any demur her rejection of her candidature to the post of police patil. The Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gangaram Topaji Hupade vs. Digamber Sadashio Kanwale and another (1991(2) Mh. L. J. 1204) and others, came to the conclusion that the Tribunal could not entertain any litigation by way of public interest questioning the appointment of the respondent No. 4. 3. Since the petitioner has not challenged her rejection nor did she claim that she is entitled to be appointed in place of respondent No. 4, the challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 4, on the grounds pleaded in the original application were by way of public interest litigation. The 3 application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal obviously was not maintainable. We do not see any error whatsoever in the Tribunal rejecting the original application filed by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner in this petition has prayed for quashing and setting aside the appointment of the 4th respondent as police patil and has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the order. Since no relief is claimed by the petitioner in the original application before the Tribunal in respect of setting aside the order rejecting her candidature, there is no merit in the present petition and the same deserves to be dismissed and accordingly summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/June 10