(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1236 OF 2009 1. Girish Sambhajirao Gade, Age : 29 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Antule Nagar, Near Hanuman Temple, Hingoli - 431 513. 2. Vasant Sitaram Ingle, Age : 29 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Yeldari Camp, Taluka : Jintoor, District : Parbhani. .. Petitioners. versus 1. Zilla Parishad, Hingoli, Through its Chief Executive Officer. 2. The District Selection Committee, Through its Member Secretary & Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Hingoli. 3. The Chairman, District Selection Committee, Zilla Parishad, and Collector, Hingoli. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate, for respondent no.1. (2) Respondent nos.2 and 3 served. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 5TH AUGUST 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have impugned the notification dated 27th November 2008, thereby canceling the process for selection to the posts of Gramsevak on contract basis. 2. Mr. S.B. Talekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that when the written examination was held and the result was declared, there was no occasion for canceling further process of selection. 3. From the perusal of the record, it would reveal that the written examination for selection, in question i.e. Gramsevak on contract basis, was held on 23rd November 2008. The results of the said examination were to be declared on 25th November 2008. 4. It is seen from the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent no.1, that after the results of the written examination were declared on 25th November 2008, a complaint was made to the Collector, Hingoli, that certain malpractices had taken place in the written (3) examination. It can be seen from the affidavit in reply, that the Collector immediately taking cognizance of the complaint, called all officers of the Selection Committee along with the record and verified the marks given by the Committee. On the basis of the perusal of the record, the Collector came to a finding that the complaint was genuine and that the information regarding the result of the written examination was leaked prior to the declaration of the result. Similar complaints were again received by the Collector and in these peculiar facts, the Collector decided to cancel the selection process. 5. From the record, it can be seen that the petitioners are yet to be selected. Even according to the petitioners, though they were qualified in the written examination, they had yet to appear for the oral examination. It can be seen that since the petitioners were not yet selected, no right of any sort is accrued in them. 6. It can further be seen that the reason given by the Collector for canceling the examination is based on verification of the record. It cannot be said that the action of the Collector, in any way, was arbitrary, so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE bgp/wp1236