1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.5282/2008 (Vikas Subhash Puri .vs. State of Mah. And another ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders ======================================= CORAM : D.D.SINHA &, A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 13, 2009 Heard Mr. P.R. Puri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. I.L. Bodade, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and Mr. Amol Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent no.2. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent-Zilla Parishad has issued advertisement dated 8.11.2008 for filling up the posts of contract Gram Sewak. The last date of submission of application was 15.11.2008, the scrutiny of applications was scheduled on 18.11.2008 and the last date of issuance of admission card was 19/20.11.2008. The counsel for the petitioner has 2 submitted that the petitioner was issued admission card by Zilla Parishad which is annexed with the petitioner as Annexure -B wherein it is specifically mentioned that written examination shall be held on 23.12.2008. It is contended that since the examination as per the admission card issued by Zilla Parishad was supposed to take place on 23.12.2008 and therefore, it was not necessary for the petitioner to make any inquiry in this regard with the authorities. It is submitted that Zilla Parishad preponed the examination and conducted the same on 23.11.2008 and for want of information in this regard the petitioner could not appear for the said examination and, therefore,lost the opportunity of securing the job and also suffered irreparable loss. It is submitted that direction may be given to the respondent- Zilla Parisahd to conduct the examination of the petitioner independently or the Zilla Parishad may be directed to give monetary compensation to the petitioner. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad has not disputed that the advertisement dated 8.11.2008 was issued by the Zilla Parishad for filling up the posts of contract Gram Sewak as well as the above referred 3 schedule of submission of application forms and issuance of admission cards. It is contended that the examination was scheduled on 23.11.2008 itself throughout the State of Maharashtra and was also held on the same day. It is contended that so far as the admission card of the petitioner issued by the Zilla Parishad is concerned, due to inadvertance the date of the written examination was mentioned as 23.12.2008 instead of 23.11.2008, however, it was open for the petitioner to seek clarification in this regard from the authorities of the Zilla Parishad. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. In the backdrop of the above referred undisputed fact it is evident that in the admission card issued by the Zilla Parishad to the petitioner, the date of written examination was specifically mentioned as 23.12.2008. Even if it is presumed that this is due to inadvertance, however, the fact remains that the petitioner lost opportunity of employment. Considering the aspect of unemployment which is growing in leaps and bounds, the mistake of the Zilla Parishad has resulted in taking away the opportunity of the petitioner to secure a job. In the instant 4 case the advertisement in question was issued inviting applications from the candidates from whole State of Maharashtra and the examination was held accordingly of the candidates on 23.11.2008. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has suffered on account of negligence on the part of employee of the Zilla Parishad who has wrongly mentioned date of written examination in the admission card, however, it is not rationale nor practicable to undo the marathon exercise of filling up the posts of Gram Sewak through the State of Maharashtra which is already concluded. However, we impose cost of Rs.5000/- on respondent Zilla Parishad and direct Zilla Parishad to deposit the same in this Court within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the said amount. With these observations and directions, writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE halwai 5