V.K. Tahilramani, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 4th March 2015 by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Mumbai in O.A. No. 348 of 2012 instituted by the petitioner questioning the termination of his services as Clerk in the office of Tehsidlar, Ta. Vikramgad, Dist. Thane (Now Palghar).

4. The petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Clerk against the reserved category in pursuance of advertisement dated 15th September 2011. In the written examination, the petitioner secured 73 marks out of 200, but despite the same, the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk by order dated 12th December 2011. Within less than two months from the date of such appointment, the respondent realised that since the petitioner had not secured the minimum passing percentage of 45% at the written examination, the petitioner's appointment was infirm and on the said basis, by the impugned order dated 1st February 2012, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated.

5. Mr. Prashant Kayan