WP 1735/13 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 1735/2013
Vinay s/o Mulchand Harswal,
aged 33 yrs, Occ. Service,
r/o Yashwantnagar, Hinganghat,
District Wardha. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. District Selection Committee, Buldana,
through its president i.e. Collector Buldana.
3. Amol s/o Narayan Gaikwad,
aged 25 yrs.,
r/o Warf No.10 Chikhli, Tq. Chikhli,
Distt. Buldana. RESPONDENTS
Shri A.V. Bhide, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 16 TH MARCH, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the selection process conducted by the respondent no.2-District Selection Committee as per the advertisement, dated 26.12.2012 for appointment of Civil engineers in municipal councils in Buldana district.
2. In pursuance of an advertisement issued by the respondent no.2 on 26.12.2012, the petitioner and several other candidates applied for appointment to the posts of Civil Engineers. The petitioner appeared ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2017 00:36:25 ::: WP 1735/13 2 Judgment at the written test and the marks allotted to the petitioner were lesser than the marks allotted to some of the candidates, whose names were included in the select list. Initially, the name of the respondent no.3 was placed at Serial Number 1 in the select list, however, on verification of his documents, it was found that he was not eligible. The respondent no.2 appointed the selected candidates on the posts of Civil Engineers.
3. Shri Bhide, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the entire selection process is flawed as the key answers to the questions that were posed in the written examination were admittedly wrong. It is submitted that though the key answers to ten questions were wrong, the respondent no.2 awarded marks to all the candidates only in respect of few questions. It is submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the entire selection process is liable to be set aside.
4. Shri Fulzele, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2, submitted that the committee found on verification of the complaints made by some candidates that certain answers in the key were wrong and, therefore, marks were allotted to each of the candidates for the said questions. It is submitted that since some of the answers were wrongfully mentioned in the key answers, the necessary correction was made and marks were allotted to each of the candidates. It is submitted that since the petitioner did not ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2017 00:36:25 ::: WP 1735/13 3 Judgment secure the requisite marks, several other candidates were placed above the petitioner in the select list. It is stated that though initially, the respondent no.3 was placed at Serial Number 1 in the select list, since he did not possess the requisite qualification, his candidature was rejected. It is stated that this Court may not interfere in the matter of selection of Civil Engineers, specially when the appointed candidates are not joined as parties and there is no flaw in the selection procedure. It is stated that the petitioner cannot challenge the selection procedure after participating in the same.
5. It appears on hearing the learned counsel for the parties that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. It appears that the committee had found that the complaints made by some of the candidates were genuine and had granted marks to all the candidates that had answered the questions that were wrongfully answered in the key. It appears that the petitioner was also benefited in the said process and the petitioner cannot make a grievance in regard to the grant of marks to all the candidates including the petitioner for the questions that were answered wrongly in the key. The case of the petitioner that certain other questions were wrongfully answered in the key answers and, hence, marks should have been allotted to all the candidates for those questions cannot be accepted. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the committee that held that there was no flaw in the other questions ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2017 00:36:25 ::: WP 1735/13 4 Judgment posed in the written examination. Since several other candidates secured more marks than the petitioner, the respondent no.2 rightly selected those candidates for appointment to the posts of Civil Engineers. The case of the petitioner that since for each part of the written examination, 45% marks were required to be secured and the list of the candidates securing marks in the two parts of the examination was not published separately, the selection process is liable to be set aside, is not well founded and is liable to be rejected, more so, when it is not the case of the petitioner that any candidate that had not secured the requisite marks in each part of the written examination has been wrongfully selected and placed above the petitioner in the select list.
6. Since there is no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2017 00:36:25 :::