STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. AJAY BHIMRAO PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forth with, and with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.

(2.) By the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners-original respondents challenge the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 8.9.2009 passed by the learned Members, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad ("MAT" for brevity), in Original Application No.383 of 2008.

(3.) Petitioner No.5 herein published an advertisement in local newspaper, inviting applications for appointments to the posts of Nursery Assistant. In all, there were four posts, out of which one each was reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste categories, and remaining two posts were for open category candidates. Written test was conducted on 12.1.2008 and result thereof was declared on 15.1.2008. Thereafter, eligible candidates were called for oral interviews on 8.2.2008. The interview committee published the entire mark-list and respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein were declared to be the selected candidates for two posts for open category, whereas, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were declared as candidates selected for the posts reserved for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe categories respectively. It is reported that in all, there were 140 applicants out of which, 114 candidates appeared for the written examination and 14 candidates were called for oral interview for aforesaid four vacancies.