TILOTTAMA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent.

(2.) BY way of present petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment and order dated 11.12.2014 passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in Original Application No. 745/2013, filed by the present petitioner. The petition arises out of certain glaring facts stated in a nutshell as under:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner submitted that on 13.2.2013 personal interviews of only two candidates i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 3 came to be conducted and that time respondent No. 3 was carrying third child in womb. Learned counsel pointed out that on 24.2.2013 respondent No. 3 delivered third child and thereby automatically became disqualified as the third child was not saved even under Rule 3 second proviso of Rules of 2005