( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6059 OF 2004 Archana Prakash Narkhede, Age : 24 years, Occupation : Household and Labour, R/o. at Belvhal, Post : Nasirabad, Taluka : Bhusawal, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Child Development Project Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Child Development Project Officer, Ekatmika Child Development Seva Yojana, Bhusawal. 3. Ujwala Yuvraj Narkhede, Age : 22 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. at Belvhal, Post : Nasirabad, Taluka : Bhusawal, District : Jalgaon. 4. Dr. Vasant Zarkhande, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. At Post : Varadsim, Taluka : Bhusawal, District : Jalgaon. ( 2 ) 5. Sow. Charulata Arun Chaudhari, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Kinhi, Taluka : Bhusawal, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. V.Y. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.P. More, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. M.K. Goyanka, Advocate, for respondent no.2. Mr. Ajay Talhar, Advocate, holding for Mr. M.M. Avhad, Advocate, for respondent no.3. Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate, for respondent nos.4 and 5. ........................ W I T H Civil Application No. 10340 of 2005 (In Writ Petition No. 6059 of 2004) The Child Development Officer, Eknath s/o. Vyankat Salunke, .. Applicant Age : 45 years, (Original Occupation : Child Development respondent Project Officer, Bhusawal, no.2 ) District : Jalgaon. ( 3 ) versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Archana Prakash Narkhede, Age : 25 years, Occupation : Household & Labour, R/o. At Bhelvhal, Post : Nasirabad, Taluka : Bhusawal, District : Jalgaon. .. Non-applicants (No.1 - Original 3. Ujwala Yuvraj Narkhede, respondent no.1, Age : 22 years, No.2 - Original Occupation : Nil, petitioner, and R/o. at Bhelwal, No.3 - Original Post : Nasirabad, respondent no.3) District : Jalgaon. ......................... Mr. M.K. Goyanka, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. P.P. More, Assistant Government Pleader, for non-applicant no.1. Mr. V.Y. Patil, Advocate, for non-applicant no.2. Mr. Ajay Talhar, Advocate, holding for Mr. M.M. Avhad, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ........................... ( 4 ) CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.P. Deshpande, J.) : 1. Rule. In view of the order passed by the Supreme Court, dated 12th January 2009, in Civil Appeal No. 158 of 2009, arising out of SLP (C) No. 5320/2006, Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. It is the case of the petitioner, that the respondent no. 2 i.e. Child Development Project Officer had issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Aanganwadi Helper. As the petitioner was eligible for being appointed in the post that was advertised, the petitioner applied for the said post in pursuance to the advertisement. It is further the case of the petitioner, that she was called for interview and did participate in the process of selection along with three other candidates, one of them being the respondent no.3. Only one post was to be filled in. On the basis of marks secured at the interview, the respondent no.3 came to be selected and was issued an order of appointment. The third respondent did join the post of ( 5 ) Aanganwadi Helper. 3. Aggrieved by the selection and appointment of respondent no.3, the present petitioner instituted this petition alleging therein that though the petitioner was more meritorious and though the petitioner had secured more marks than the respondent no.3, marks were tampered and altered by the respondent no.2 and thereby third respondent was illegally selected. It is then stated in the petition, that the respondent no. 2 at a later point of time admitted that he had committed a misconduct while selecting the candidate. Thus, the petitioner primarily places reliance on a "confessional statement" allegedly written and signed by the respondent no.2. There is no other material on record to indicate that the petitioner had any other source of information touching the fact that the petitioner had secured more marks than the respondent no.3. 4. An affidavit in reply came to be filed by the respondent no.2, stating therein that the Selection Committee comprised of in all eight members and the Committee was presided over by the local M.L.A. Four candidates had appeared for interview before the Selection Committee and the Selection Committee had conducted the interview as per the guidelines and instructions contained in the Government Resolution. It is categorically stated that in the interview, the ( 6 ) respondent no.3 had got more marks than the petitioner and, as such, the respondent no.3 came to be selected and appointed. The so called "confessional statement" given under the signature by the respondent no.2, wherein he allegedly admits his misdeeds and tampering of marks, is filed on record at page 14 of the petition. Touching the said document, the respondent no.2 has stated in paragraph 3 of his affidavit in reply, that on 5th July 2004, a mob of 200 - 300 people had gathered under the leadership of Ex-President of Municipal Council, Bhusawal, Mr. Santosh Choudhari, along with some R.P.I. leaders and workers of N.C.P. party. They abused the deponent in filthy language and gave him threats by alleging that the respondent no.2 had committed malpractice in selection of Aanganwadi Helper. By exercising undue pressure, the said mob of 200 - 300 persons procured a writing from the respondent no.2, which is annexed at page 14 of the petition. 5. Thus, on the one hand, the petitioner heavily relies on the so called confessional statement of the respondent no.2, admitting tampering of the marks in the process of selection, whereas the respondent no.2 has asserted that he has committed no wrong but the said writing was procured from him under duress and pressure by the Ex-President of the Municipal Council along with mob of 200 - 300 persons. Reading of document at page 14, it is clear that in the first place, it fails to ( 7 ) convey any meaningful information and in the second place, the said statement records that initially the M.L.A. had given marks in ink, whereas some of the members had awarded marks by pencil and later on at the dictates of M.L.A., marks were changed and re-written by ink. Original mark sheets prepared during the selection process are produced before us for perusal. On perusal of the original papers, we do not see any marking by pencil and/or overwriting of marks awarded by different Committee members to the candidates concerned. 6. It will not be out of place to state that when the Writ Petition came to be filed and heard for admission and interim relief, affidavit in reply was already filed by respondent no.2, pointing out the circumstances under which he was made to write the document at page 14. The said officer was directed to remain present in the court. He seems to have replied the queries put to him by the court, touching the document on page 14. This court vide order dated 31st March 2005, recorded that the respondent no.2, after reading the said document at Exhibit "C", stated that "the same has been written by him, signed by him and the contents therein are also true". On that basis, an interim order came to be passed, in terms of prayer clause "D". Prayer clause "D" reads thus : ( 8 ) " Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the Respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Aanganwadi Madatnis, who is more meritorious candidate for the post of Aanganwadi Madatnis. " Consequent upon passing of the said interim order, the respondent no.3 came to be removed and at her place, the present petitioner came to be appointed. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench of this court, dated 31st March 2005, the present respondent no.3 filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court and after grant of leave, Supreme Court heard the appeal and set aside the order passed by this court, as the order was found to be wholly unsustainable. The Supreme Court also, by its order dated 12th January 2009, requested the High Court to consider the desirability of disposing of the Writ Petition as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court, we are informed at the Bar, that the petitioner still continues to work as Aanganwadi Helper and the respondent no.3 is out of employment. ( 9 ) 7. Touching the order dated 31st March 2005, the respondent no.2 filed a Civil Application, immediately after obtaining copy of the order, being Civil Application No. 10340/2005, seeking correction in the said order, by contending that the order dated 31st March 2005 wrongly records with reference to Exhibit "C", that "the contents therein are also true", whereas the same ought to be corrected as "but the contents therein are not true". The application is still pending and the same is also taken up for hearing and disposal. 8. The Civil Application No. 10340/2005, moved by the respondent no.2 i.e. Child Development Project Officer is supported by an affidavit. The statement contained in the Civil Application goes hand in hand with the stand taken by the respondent no.2, which is reflected from the affidavit in reply filed by him, that though the document is written and signed by him, the same was under duress and pressure and written as per the dictates of the mob headed by the Ex-President of the Municipal Council. There is no reply filed by the present petitioner to the Civil Application denying the contents therein. The respondent no.2 i.e. Child Development Project Officer was directed to remain present on 31st March 2005 before this court and he had already filed an affidavit in reply prior thereto, stating therein categorically that he was made to write the so ( 10 ) called confessional statement under pressure. Thus, we find it most unlikely and improbable that the said officer would make a statement before the court, that the contents of Exhibit "C" are also true. Being of the view that the statement made by respondent no.2 was erroneously recorded by this court in its order dated 31st March 2005, the Civil Application deserves to be allowed and the correction will have to be carried out in the order dated 31st March 2005. 9. After directing correction in the order dated 31st March 2005, there is absolutely no material on record to substantiate the case of the petitioner, that as a matter of fact, she had secured more marks than the respondent no.3, however, at a later point of time, the respondent no.2 tampered or altered the marks so as to confer highest marks on respondent no.3 to the detriment of the petitioner's claim. It is reiterated, that we have perused the original mark sheets which are produced for our perusal. The said mark sheets are also indicative of the fact that the contents of Exhibit "C" are wholly incorrect. We decline to read Exhibit "C" as a document supporting the claim of the petitioner, as we are of the clear view that the respondent no.2 was pressurized and coerced by the Ex-President of the Municipal Council along with a mob of 200 - 300 persons to write the said document and sign it. ( 11 ) 10. We have no hesitation to conclude that the petitioner had utterly failed in establishing that the petitioner was denied appointment though more meritorious than the respondent no.3. As the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interfering with the impugned process of selection and consequential appointment of respondent, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. We would like to observe that on account of an interim order passed by this court, a legally selected candidate was unseated and the petitioner was appointed. Despite the Apex Court having set aside the said order, the petitioner is still continued in service and the respondent no.3 is kept out. We have no iota of doubt, that on dismissal of this petition, the respondent nos.1 and 2 would take immediate corrective steps by reinstating the respondent no.3 as Aanganwadi Helper. 12. In the result, we pass the following order : (i) Writ Petition No. 6059/2004 is dismissed. Rule therein is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. (ii) Civil Application No. 10340/2005 is allowed. It is directed that in the last line of paragraph 2 of the order dated 31st March 2005, instead of "..........and the contents therein are ( 12 ) also true", it shall be read "............but the contents therein are not true". The correction be carried out accordingly. 13. At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks stay of this order for a period of eight weeks. 14. We do not propose to grant the said relief, for the obvious reason that the petitioner came to be appointed on the basis of interim order passed by this court which is set aside by the Apex Court by order dated 12th January 2009 and despite the same, the petitioner is continued in service. Hence, the prayer for stay of this order is rejected. 15. Certified Copy expedited. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/6059wp