Vinay S/O Mulchand Harswal vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 786 Bom

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

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

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

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