Govinda Chandrakant Shahane vs The District Collector And Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 3424 Bom

                                    1         24-wp11056-14.odt




                                                                   
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                           
                   WRIT PETITION NO.11056 OF 2014 

    Govinda s/o. Chandrakant Shahane,
    Age 23 years, Occ. Education,




                                          
    Presently studying M.B.A.,
    r/o. Tirumala Niwas, 
    Saraswati Nagar,
    Hingoli, Tq. and Dist.Hingoli              ..Petitioner




                                       
                  Vs.         
    1. The District Collector, Hingoli
       Cum President, District 
                             
       Selection Committee, Hingoli

    2. The Chief Executive Officer,
       Zilla Parishad, Hingoli
      


       Cum Member, District 
   



       Selection Committee, Hingoli

    3. The Deputy Chief Executive
       Officer, Zilla Parishad,





       Hingoli, Cum Member Secretary,
       District Selection Committee,
       Hingoli

    4. Pradeep s/o. Sanjay Bondhare,





       Age 24 years, Occ. Nil,
       r/o. Akhada Balapur,
       Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli            ..Respondents




     ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2016          ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:27:00 :::
                                            2           24-wp11056-14.odt


    Mr.P.S.Paranjape, Advocate for petitioner




                                                                            
    Mr.S.D.Kaldate, AGP for respondent no.1 




                                                    
    Mr.V.V.Bhavthankar,   Advocate   for   respondent   nos.2 
    and 3

    Mr.V.D.Salunke, Advocate for respondent no.4




                                                   
                             --

                                     CORAM :  S.S. SHINDE AND
                                              SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. 

DATE : JUNE 28, 2016 PER COURT :

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for

the respective respondents.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has sought

directions to the respondents to consider the

correct answers along with proof of answers, given

by the petitioner, for five questions and select

him for the post of Extension Officer (Stat.) with

Zilla Parishad, Hingoli. The petitioner has also

sought directions to the respondents to cancel the

selection of respondent no.4 for the said post or

3 24-wp11056-14.odt

that the subject matter may be referred to a

Committee of Experts.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits that out of 100 questions in

the written examination, the answers of 8

questions, which were published in the Model

Answer Key, were wrong. Therefore, on the very

same day, when the written examination was

conducted, the petitioner had made a

representation to the respondents stating that

wrong answers were mentioned in the Model Answer

Key for 8 questions. It is submitted that after

the said representation was filed, a Committee of

the respondents found that out of those 8 answers

in the Model Answer Key, which were mentioned by

the petitioner in his representation, 3 answers

were not correct and accordingly, correction was

effected. The learned Counsel further submits that

though the petitioner had given correct answers of

4 24-wp11056-14.odt

the remaining 5 questions, since any of the

Experts did not examine the grievance of the

petitioner, this Court may give directions to the

respondents to constitute a committee of the

Experts, and if necessary, such Experts should be

of choice of the petitioner and the respondents

and then, the Committee of Experts should re-

examine the issue and accordingly, after

reassessment, the candidate, who secures higher

marks, may be selected for appointment to the post

of Extension Officer (Stat.) with respondent no.4.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner invites

our attention to the replies filed by respondent

no.1 - Collector and respondent no.2 - Chief

Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad and submits that

contrary stands have been taken by the said

respondents and therefore, the issue raised by the

petitioner needs to be referred to a Committee of

Experts.

5 24-wp11056-14.odt

5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel

appearing for respondent no.4 invites our

attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by

respondent no.1 - Collector and submits that the

petitioner's representation was considered by a

Committee of the respondents and after examination

of the grievance of the petitioner, 3 answers,

which were found to be incorrect out of the 8

answers mentioned by the petitioner in his

representation, were corrected. At the relevant

time, the petitioner was satisfied after having

discussion with the members of the Committee of

the respondents and the Statistical Officer, as

reflected in paragraph 7 of the reply filed by

respondent no.1.

6. The learned Counsel for respondent no.4

further submits that even on merits, as regards

the answers given by the petitioner to Question

No.69 in the Question Paper which was not in

6 24-wp11056-14.odt

respect of wide circulation of the English

Newspaper, but was about the maximum number of

cities from which the English newspaper is

published, he answered that it is 'The Times of

India'. He relied on a copy of Volume 2, Issue 7

published by the International Journal of Physical

and Social Sciences, which has been annexed to the

affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.4 at

Exhibit 'R-1' page 103. He submits that 'The Times

of India' is India's English Newspaper having

largest circulation of 6,56,000 but published in

six cities and 'The Indian Express' is an English

Newspaper having daily circulation of 5,19,000 but

published in seventeen cities. Therefore,

according to the learned Counsel for respondent

no.4, the correct answer to the said Question

No.69, 'The Indian Express'. He submits that the

answer to the said Question given by the petition

was 'Times of India', which was a wrong answer.

The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the

7 24-wp11056-14.odt

petitioner is wandering under a wrong impression

that he gave correct answers.

7. So far as the other questions are concerned,

the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not

addressed this Court on merits and correctness of

the answers mentioned in the Answer sheet by the

petitioner. He submits that it is for the Experts

to find out, whether the answers mentioned for the

said 4 questions in the Model Answer Keys are

correct or otherwise.

8. The learned AGP appearing for respondent no.1

- State relies on the reply filed by respondent

no.1 - Collector and submits that the grievance of

the petitioner was taken care of and therefore,

there is no substance in the present petition. The

same argument is reiterated by the learned Counsel

appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3 - Zilla

Parishad.

8 24-wp11056-14.odt

9. We have give careful consideration to the

submissions advanced by the learned Counsel

appearing for the parties. With their able

assistance, perused the pleadings in the petition,

annexures thereto, replies filed by the

respondents and copy of the advertisement placed

on record.

10. Upon perusal of the copy of the advertisement,

it appears that there is no mention of any

Committee of Expert for redressal of grievance of

the candidates, however, one Helpline number is

given in Clause No.41 of the advertisement for

communicating the grievance, if any, in respect of

selection process. The petitioner, adverting to

the said clause, made the representation to the

respondents. It appears from the reply filed by

respondent no.1 - Collector that the questions,

which are the subject matter of the entire

9 24-wp11056-14.odt

controversy, are statistical in nature and those

questions were selected by the Statistical Officer

who is expert in the field. It further appears

from careful perusal of the averments in paragraph

7 of the affidavit-in-reply of respondent no.1,

that the Statistical Officer has given answers to

the queries raised by the petitioner and at the

relevant time, had satisfied the petitioner. It is

specifically mentioned in paragraph 8 of the

affidavit-in-reply that it was brought to the

notice of the petitioner when he made

representation, the answers were also shown to him

and he was satisfied at that time. The statement

made in paragraph 8 of the affidavit-in-reply may

be correct or according to the petitioner, it may

be correct, however, the same relates to the

disputed question of facts and therefore, we do

not wish to enter into the said aspect. Suffice it

to say that the Statistical Officer has given

answers to the queries raised by the petitioner

10 24-wp11056-14.odt

and the said statement in the affidavit-in-reply

of respondent no.1, needs to be accepted in view

of the fact that the questions and answers

provided in the Model Answer Key, which are the

subject matter of dispute, have been selected by

the Statistical Officer, who, according to

respondent no.1 - Collector, is the Expert in the

subject. Apart from this, the Committee of

respondents has also gone into the grievance of

the petitioner. Therefore, while exercising the

writ jurisdiction, we do not think it appropriate

to constitute a Committee of Experts and refer

those 5 questions and answers mentioned in the

Model Answer Key and the dispute raised by the

petitioner, to the said Committee.

11. The selection process has to stop at a

particular stage. Apart from it, the petitioner

has participated in the selection process along

with other candidates and issuance of further

11 24-wp11056-14.odt

directions, would destabilize the entire selection

process, which has already reached to the final

stage.

12. In that view of the matter, we do not think it

appropriate to issue any directions to constitute

a Committee of Experts, so as to consider the

controversy involved in the present petition.

Hence, the Writ Petition stands rejected. No

costs.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

kbp