This Court on earlier occasion having examined the matter stated that on these three aspects, the appellant satisfies the qualification required by the Rules in an appeal arising out of an order made by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench for short the Tribunal on the previous occasion, by which it had refused to interfere with the action taken by the Public Service Commission, cancelling the candidature of the appellant was set aside, with a direction to the respondents to companysider the case of the appellant for appointment if he otherwise satisfies the requisite qualifications including the marks obtained in the written test and the interview already held.
The Tribunal reviewed its earlier order and set aside its earlier order made on the Original Application and dismissed the application filed by the appellant.
Thereafter, when the order made by the Tribunal was number companyplied with, an application in companytempt had been filed.
That application was companysidered and the Tribunal examined whether qualification should be reckoned as possessed on the last date of filing of the application or on the date of the interview and found two sets of precedents in decisions of this Court.
The appellant had applied for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector.
On examination of this matter, the authorities number having given an appointment to the appellant, he had approached the Tribunal once over again.
However, on the basis that even if on the date of interview the candidate possesses qualification, he companyld be appointed, the matter was disposed of with a direction to clear his case and to companysider him for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector.
This is an unfortunate case wherein the appellant has been put to the necessity of approaching this Court for a second time.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
