WP 5813/11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5813/2011 Uddhav Shivaji Phad V/s The State & others. _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri N.D. Kendre, Advocate for petitioner. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri A.M. Karad, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. Date: 09.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging an appointment of respondent no.3 as Public Information and Relation Officer. The challenge is two fold. Firstly, respondent no.3 is not project affected person and secondly the marks given to respondent no.3 are not correct. We have perused the advertisement. In the advertisement, it is mentioned that the candidates holding project affected person's WP 5813/11 2 certificate will be considered. It does not state that only project affected persons will be considered for appointment and not others. From the marks obtained by all the candidates (Exh.E-9), it is clear that the total marks obtained by respondent no.3 are 67.8, whereas the petitioner's marks are 64.8. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the answer sheets of respondent no.3 to contend that there is an overwriting and, therefore, the marks given to those questions ought not to have been calculated. We are not in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. From bare perusal of the answer sheets, it is clear that there is no overwriting, as alleged by the petitioner. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed. (S.B. Deshmukh, J.) (D.B. Bhosale, J.) Dt/- 09.08.2011 ndk/c98113