IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO. 9401 OF 2009 Amol Bharat Jawale ... Petitioner Versus Commissioner, Maharashtra Public Service Commission ... Respondent Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure for Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Masurkar, A.G.P. For R. No. 3. Mr. R.D. Rane, Special Counsel for High Court. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 18, 2009 P.C. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. Petitioner had applied for the post of J.M.F.C. According to Petitioner, he passed both the preliminary examination as also the main examination. The Petitioner was thereafter called for an interview. The Petitioner was not interviewed as an objection was raised by one of the members of the Interview committee that the Petitioner did not have the requisite qualifications. 3. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner was pursuing the Five years law course. Five years Law Course has 10 semesters. There is an examination conducted at the end of each semester. Petitioner did not pass the 5th Semester in the first attempt. He cleared the 5th semester at the subsequent examination but in the same academic year. According to Petitioner, in terms of the rules of Shivaji University, if the candidate passes in that academic year, it should be treated as having passed examination in the first attempt. 4. Recruitment rules framed for recruitment to the post of J.M.F.C. for fresh law candidates, reads as under : “must be fresh law graduate who : (1) has cleared degree in law by passing all the examinations leading to the degree in the first attempt. The stress therefore, is in passing of examination leading to the degree in the first attempt. The mere fact that University consolidates the marks of two semesters and issues one mark list for the academic year does not mean that if in the examination conducted at the end of each semester the student did not pass the examination at the first attempt and passes examination subsequently, but during the same academic year, it means passing the examination at the first attempt. We are clearly of the opinion that there is no ambiguity in the rule. Rule clearly requires the candidate to pass all examinations. That would mean all the examination conducted at the end of each semester at first attempt. The Petitioner having not passed the fifth semester in first attempt, the Petitioner was rightly not interviewed. 5. Merely because the Petitioner had passed examination or was allowed to appear for the examination will not stop the recruiting body from considering the eligibility of the candidate, if the candidate was otherwise not ineligible and that had escaped the notice of the screening authority, which mistakenly allowed the Petitioner to appear for the examination. This does not confer right on such candidate to be called for the interview. A candidate who is ineligible does not become eligible because of a mistake done by the screening or appointing authority. In our opinion, therefore, no interference is called for. Petition rejected. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)