1 Lrs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.10391/2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No.135/2010. Vinayak Vasantrao. Vispute and ors ..Petitioners. vs. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Thane and ors. ..Respondents. Mr A.A. Kumbhakoni, Sr.Advocate i/b P. M. Mokashi, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr R.S. Apte, Sr. Counsel, i/b Mr A.R.Pitale for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr V.S. Gokhale, A.G.P., for respondent No.4. Mr S.A. Sawant, Applicant in Civil Application No.135/2010. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED: 19TH JANUARY,2010 2 P.C.:- By this petition, the petitioners are challenging cancellation of the process undertaken by the Municipal Corporation for selection of candidates for the post of Ward Officers. An advertisement for the posts was issued on 19.3.2008. The petitioners had applied. They were called for the written examination. The notice of written examination is dated 2.12.2008. In the notice of written examination, itself, the petitioners were informed that the examination would be in the nature of Screening Type test to find out how many candidates are qualified to be called for the interview and the selection will be based on the performance at the interview. The petitioners appeared for the test. They were short-listed and called for interviews. After the interviews were over, the Corporation cancelled the entire process and decided to undertake a fresh process. The petition is filed at that stage challenging the cancellation. Challenge to cancellation is on the ground that it has been ordered by the Corporation without any reason and that it is arbitrary. The Corporation has filed this reply and has stated that the interview panel which consists of Deputy Municipal Commissioner, representative of the Commissioner, the Auditor of the Corporation who is representative of the backward 3 class and three Government Officers interviewed the candidates and found that the performance of all the candidates called for interviews was extremely poor. None of the candidate was able to secure even 50% of the marks. They have produced on record a Chart showing performance of each of the candidate called for interview. That chart is taken on record and marked Exh. X for identification. The case of the Corporation is that the post of Ward Officer is a very important post and therefore it was decided by the Corporation that candidates who are not able to secure even 50% marks in the oral examination, should not be appointed and if such persons are appointed it will be injurious to the administration of the Corporation. It was also discovered that there was a mistake in describing reservation for one of the reserved posts and therefore, the Corporation cancelled the selection process. There are other reasons also given by the Corporation, but according to us the reason that none of the candidates called for the interviews was found fit for appointment by the Selection Committee, which consists of high ranking Officers of the Corporation and of the State Government, is good enough reason to cancel the selection process. In our opinion, as the Selection Committee has high ranking officers there is no room to doubt their bona fides. 4 We also find considerable force in the case of the Corporation that looking at the performance of the candidates called for the interview, the Corporation had no alternative but to undertake the process. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent- Corporation has stated before us that the Corporation has initiated the process for appointing an outside agency for conducting written examination and that proposal is presently before the General Body of the Corporation. He has stated that efforts will be made to have the examination conducted through such an outside agency and that process of selection will be completed, as expeditiously as possible, in any case, within a period of six months from today. In our opinion, as the Corporation was well within its right to order fresh process, no interference at the hands of this Court is called for. In the result, writ petition is hereby rejected. Civil Application is disposed of. Sd/- (D.K. DESHMUKH,J) Sd/- (A.R.JOSHI,J)