the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. It is to be noted that, one of the condition for being eligible to appear for the written examination for the post of Police Patil, was that some proof of residence had to be produced and it could be either a rationcard or any other document. Accordingly, respondent no.3 had produced the rationcard. An allegation was made that the said rationcard was tampered. It is to be noted that, neither the Tahsildar nor the SubDivisional Officer has come to a conclusion that, she was the author of the said fabrication. In any event, it is not challenged that respondent no.3 was not a resident of the said village, since admittedly she was a Sarpanch of the said village. That being the case, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not eligible to appear for the written examination of Police Patil. So far as condition no.5 is concerned, namely that the candidate should not have held to be guilty for the offence punishable under the Act is concerned, no such finding has been given by the Competent Court and she has not been held to be guilty for having fabricated the said document. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, therefore, in our view has correctly assessed the material on record and has given plausible reasons for the purpose of rejecting the contention of the
