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 Kayande, learned counsel for the petitioner, does not dispute the aforesaid facts, but he submits that the respondent - State is bound to grant relaxation in minimum passing percentage and prescribed such minimum passing percentage at 35% in case of reserved category candidates like the petitioner. He submits that such relaxation has been granted to one member of the reserved category in the same selection process. He submits that the Chief Minister of the State, in some instances, has granted similar relaxation in favour of the candidature from the reserved category. He submits that such relaxation has to be granted in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash New v. K.S. Jagannathan and anr., AIR 1987 SC 537., Dr. Preeti Srivastava and anr. v. State of M.P. and ors., AIR 1999 SC 2894. and Rohtas Bhankhar and ors. v. Union of India and anr., (2014) 8 SCC 872. For all these reasons, Mr. Kayande submits that the impugned judgment and order made by the MAT may be set aside and the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner in the O.A. be granted along with all consequential benefits.

6. Since, a positive statement was made in the petition that the Chief Minister of the State has granted relaxation in the minimum passing percentage up to 35% in favour of the candidates belonging to the reserved category, we made an order on 3rd August 2016 to direct the respondent - State to consider if any such relaxation is possible, since, there was no dispute that the petitioner belongs to reserved category.

7. Mr. Walimbe, learned AGP for the respondent - State, on the basis of written instructions on 25th April 2018, states that in terms of the Government Resolution, the minimum passing percentage in the written examination for selection to the Clerk cadre is 45% and there is no provision for grant of any relaxation. He states that no such relaxation has been granted by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State and since there is no provision for grant of relaxation, it will not be possible for the State Government to grant relaxation to the petitioner. Mr. Walimbe submits that grant of any relaxation to the petitioner, may constitute a precedent and therefore, it is not possible to consider the request of the petitioner for relaxation.

8. The MAT has considered the contentions of the petitioner in some detail. The MAT has held that in terms of G.Rs., obtaining a minimum percentage of 45% in the written test is mandatory and since, there is no provision for relaxation, there is no question of considering the petitioner's plea for relaxation of this requirement. The MAT, in fact called for and perused the original records and has noted that apart from the petitioner there was only one other candidate, w