FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9063 OF 2010 “Ramdas s/o. Bhaskar Patil Vs. Chairman, District Selection Committee and others” Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. L.V. Sangit, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. A.B. Girase, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM :- D.B. BHOSALE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 18th April, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the appointment order dated 9/11/2009 issued by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2, on the ground that the petitioner was more meritorious than respondent No.2 and, therefore, he ought to have been appointed on the post of Parichar ( Ward Boy). 3] There is no dispute that in the written examination, the petitioner and respondent No.2, both, secured 79.57% marks and their names were placed in the waiting list. Subsequently, respondent No.2 was appointed in 2009. Learned counsel for petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No.2 solely FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9063 OF 2010 “Ramdas s/o. Bhaskar Patil Vs. Chairman, District Selection Committee and others” Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 on the ground of Govt. Resolution dated 27.6.2008. 4] Learned counsel for respondent No.1 – District Selection Committee, on instructions, submits that between the petitioner and respondent No.2, they preferred the respondent No.2 because his name was also forwarded by the Employment Exchange and that he had also done MSCIT course. 5] We have perused the resolution dated 27.6.2003, relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner. It is clear that the said resolution would apply to appointments of Group-C employees, whereas, the appointment involved in the present writ petition is of a Ward boy (Group-D) post. In the circumstances, the reliance placed upon the aforesaid Govt. Resolution dated 27.6.2008 is misplaced. 6] We find no merit in the writ petition, hence, the writ petition is dismissed. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [D.B. BHOSALE, J.] grt/-