1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.523 OF 2008 Yeshwant Prabhakar Meshram & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. The Hon’ble Registrar, District Court, Chandrapur & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.P.P.Thakare i/b D.D. Fulzele for the petitioners Mr.V.S.Masurkar, G.P. for the respondents CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL & & & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED : 25TH JANUARY, 2008 DATED : 25TH JANUARY, 2008 DATED : 25TH JANUARY, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. These two petitioners have approached this court seeking a declaration that they are entitled for being considered for the candidature for 2 selection and entitled to appear for the written examination to be held on 27.1.08 for the post of Clerk and Peon respectively on the establishment of District and Sessions Court, Chandrapur and therefore, this court should direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear for the written examination to be held on 27.01.2008. 3. In view of the fact that the examinations are going to be held on 27.01.2008, we called upon the learned G.P. to get instructions from the Principal, District and Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. Accordingly, the communication received in respect of both the candidates from the Principal, District and Sessions Judge, Chandrapur is placed on record. Copies are furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned G.P. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are eligible in all respects and qualify for being considered for appointment to the post of Clerk and Peon respectively. 3 5. The communication received from the Principal, District and Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in respect of Petitioner, Yashwant Prabhakar Meshram clearly indicates that he has not filled in the required information and therefore, his application form came to be rejected as the advertisement clearly provides for want of complete information, the application form will not be considered and will be rejected. Similarly, in case of Bhimrao Maroti Undirwade, he not only failed to provide the necessary information but also did not calculate his age correctly. Well, the incorrect calculation of age will not make any difference but the other deficiencies are of substantial nature. 6. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, we find that as the petitioners have failed to furnish the required information which is of substantial nature, for this deficiency the respondent Principal, District and Sessions Judge, Chandrapur was justified in rejecting their application. As such, the petition is dismissed. 4 7. The communication received from the Principal, District and Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in respect of the petitioners be retained on record and marked ’X’ collectively for identification. ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J ) ( SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J ) ( SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J )