1 WP No.8327/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8327 OF 2011 Mrs Sulbha Manohar Badamikar and Anr .. Petitioners Vs State of Maharashtra and ors .. Respondents Mr.Ashok M Joshi, for the petitioners. Mr.S.R.Shinde, AGP, for respondent no.1. Mr R.M.Pethe, for respondent nos 2 and 3. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & M.L. TAHALIYANI,JJ. DATE : 18/10/2011 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the decision of holding written test for selection to the post of Deputy Project Officer in the Department of Urban Community Development Project. The post of Deputy Project officer was advertised in daily Pudhari on 22.10.2010. Mr Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submitted that the respondents ought not to have conducted written test since it was not made clear in the advertisement and so also they did not make it clear at any point of time as to what would be the syllabus for the test. He submitted that there T 2 WP No.8327/2011 was no rational or objective behind holding written test. Since the advertisement was not annexed to the writ petition we perused photo copy of the advertisement tendered by Mr Joshi across the Bar. In our opinion, condition no.11 in the advertisement empowers the respondents to conduct written test for short-listing in the event number of applications were more. In this case, the post was only one, whereas applications received were 24. In view thereof, the respondents seem to have taken decision to conduct written test and they communicated the decision to all the applicants vide letter dated 6.9.2011.The petitioners never made any grievance about the written test or about the manner in which they held written test till filing of the present writ petition. As a matter of fact, the petitioners, even did not appear for the test. It further appears that on 30.8.2011 the petitioners had made representation to the concerned authority requesting not to hold the written test and selection be made only on the basis of oral interview. This indicates that the petitioners were aware about the decision to hold written test. The judgment relied upon by Mr Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, in B.Ramakichenin alias Balagandhi Vs Union of India and ors (2008) 1 SCC 366, in our opinion, is of no avail to the petitioners. In fact, this judgment clearly states that it is open to hold the test for shortlisting. 3 WP No.8327/2011 Relevant paragraph no.17 in the judgment of the Supreme court reads thus : “However, for valid shortlisting there have to be two requirements:- (I) it has to be on some rational and objective basis. For instance, if selection has to be done on some post for which the minimum essential requirement is a Bsc degree, and if there are a large number of eligible applicants, the selection body can resort to shortlisting by prescribing certain minimum marks in BSc and only those who have got such marks may be called for the interview. This can be done even if the rule or advertisement does not mention that only those who have the aforementioned minimum marks, will be considered or appointed on the post. Thus the procedure of shortlisting is only a practical via media which has been followed by the courts in various decisions since otherwise there may be great difficulties for the selecting and appointing authorities as they may not be able to interview hundreds and thousands of eligible candidates: (ii) if a prescribed method of shortlisting has been mentioned in the rule or advertisement then that method alone has to be followed”. In the present case, as observed earlier, it was prescribed in the advertisement itself that written test for shortlisting would be conducted if the applicants were more. From perusal of the letter dated 6.9.2011 it is clear that the respondents conducted written test to test knowledge of candidates of Marathi, English, General Knowledge etc and the nature of test was objective. We do not find anything wrong in the manner in which the test was conducted. In the circumstances, no case for 4 WP No.8327/2011 interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (M.L. Tahaliyani,J.) (D. B. Bhosale, J.)