Petitioners want to point out, be looked into. As
stated above, for the reasons stated herein above, we do
not find any error in the impugned order. As stated
above, the results of the interviews have been declared,
Mr.Bandivadekar, learned counsel for the Respondent, has
still stated that he has no objection as such if the
candidates, who are to be given preference in accordance
with the Government Circular / decision dated 1st August
2003, are given preference. His submission, however, is
that those persons ought to be from this select list and
not from outside. He therefore very fairly states that
although the Respondent is at Sr.No.1 in the select
list, if there is any such other persons from the
preferential categories in the select list at a lower
position, he cannot deny such a person being given a
preference over the Respondent. Mr.Vanarse has
submitted that this preference cannot be restricted only
to the persons in the select list. We could have
examined this submission provided any such persons were
available and any such recommendations had been made in
reasonable time. In the instant case, the interviews
were held way back in December 2003. It is stated by
the Petitioners themselves before the Administrative
Tribunal that the concerned Collectors did not have the
candidates as per the requirements and, therefore, they
issued the no objection certificates. More than three
years have gone after the interviews were conducted.
