IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPEALLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No. 2106 of 2009 Gangaramsinha s/o Hanumansinha Thakur ... Petitioner V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents ... Mr. V. A. Dhakne, Advocate for petitioner Mr. V.D. Rakh, Asstt. Government Pleader for respondent/State Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3 ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 15th December, 2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner appeared for the examination conducted for appointment of Gram Sevak for 183 posts available for Nanded District. The objective type questions were required to be answered by the candidates. The petitioner could not be selected, as he secured less marks i. e. 135.57 marks. 3. The candidate, who secured 137.71 marks was selected. The petitioner’s challenge is that after verification and getting the information under Right to Information Act, it was noticed that answer given by him to questions No. 40 and 61 were correct, whereas no marks were allotted against these questions. If these answers are ( 2 ) considered to be correct, then the petitioner will get five more marks and becomes eligible for appointment as Gram Sevak. 4. The respondents No. 2 and 3 filed affidavit in reply stating that the answers given by the petitioner to questions No. 40 and 61 were wrong. 5. The said examinations were conducted in the year 2008 and posts were filled and selection process came to be completed. In the facts of the case, we do not find that the issue is required to be re- open now. Even otherwise, the respondents by placing necessary material on record, have controverted the contentions raised by the petitioner. 6. In exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction, no interference is called for. The petition is therefore dismissed. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) srm/wp/2106/09