1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1364 OF 2010 Prakash S. Patil ...Petitioner v/s Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur and ors. ...Respondents Mr Anilkumar Patil for Petitioner. Mr S.N. Patil, AGP for Respondent No.6. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R. JOSHI JJ. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY 2010. 2 P.C. :- 1] The petitioner was appointed to the post of Extention Officer (Education) by the Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur after his name was communicated as a candidate who has become eligible to be appointed in view of the marks obtained by him in the examination conducted by the respondent No.4. Thereafter, as the services of the petitioner were likely to be terminated, he approached this Court. From the affidavits that were filed by the Zilla Parishad, the State Government and the respondent No.4 in a group of petitions filed earlier, it was found that the reason why the Zilla Parishad intended to terminate the services of the petitioner was that the respondent No.4 had communicated his name as a candidate eligible for appointment by mistake. In those petitions, therefore, an order was made directing the Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Water Conservation, Government of Maharashtra to hold enquiry in the matters and grant opportunity of being heard to the persons concerned 3 including the petitioner and thereafter make a reasoned order. Pursuant to that order passed by this Court, the Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Water Conservation has passed the order by which the Secretary has held that the Zilla Parishad was justified to terminate the services of the petitioner. It is this order which is challenged in the petition. 2] Perusal of the order shows that the petitioner was given inspection of his answer-book to find out the marks obtained by him. He was also given inspection of the answer-book of the candidate whom the Zilla Parishad intended to appoint in his place viz. the respondent No.7 and after holding physical verification the authority came to the conclusion that the respondent No.7 had secured more marks than the petitioner, however, instead of recommending his name, the respondent No.4 by mistake recommended the name of the petitioner and therefore, now that mistake is to be corrected by the Zilla Parishad. The learned counsel appearing 4 for petitioner submits that there was possibility of the answer-books being tampered with by somebody in the respondent No.4 and therefore that aspect should have been enquired into. In our opinion, the submission is not well founded in the absence of any concrete allegation being made against somebody in the respondent No.4 regarding tampering with the answer-books. We find that the candidate who has secured more marks than the petitioner is entitled for appointment and therefore, no exception can be taken to the decision taken by the Zilla Parishad. Petition is rejected. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE A.R. JOSHI )