1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3511 OF 2008 Mr.Rajendra Ramdas Budgujar .. Petitioner Vs. Maharashtra Public Service Commissioner & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Kanchan Pamnani i/b Ms.Ankita Sangrani for the petitioner Ms.M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for respondent nos.3 CORAM : J. N. Patel & Smt. Mridula Bhatkar, JJ DATE : July 8, 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has invoked extraordinary Jurisdiction of this court as he was prevented from appearing for the Civil Services Examination of M.P.S.C. after clearing the preliminary examination which was held on 2.9.07. The petitioner had applied for the post of Nayab Tahsildar in the category of physically challenged as some post was reserved for the blind and / or partially sighted candidate as per the advertisement published in the newspaper Loksatta dated 30 “ ” th May 2007 by M.P.S.C. 2 3. On 28.02.08, the results of all candidates who appeared for the MSSPE exam were declared excluding that of the petitioner despite the fact that the advertisement clearly offered posts to blind candidates and subsequently, such candidates were permitted to appear for the examination. 4. As soon as the petition was filed, it was taken up by the court on 10.0608 and respondent nos.1 and 2 were directed to produce the result of the petitioner in a sealed cover.. The court examined the same and found that since the petitioner is qualified in the preliminary examination, allowed the petitioner to sit in the examination which was to commence from 14.6.08 and directed the respondents to extend all facilities to the petitioner to enable him to appear for the examination with a rider that his result will not be declared and this should be communicated to this court in a sealed cover as and when declared. 5. Subsequently, this court examined the results of the petitioner and found that he has secured marks more than the cut off line which enabled the petitioner to be called for interview and though the interviews for the post were over in March and April, 2009 and they were likely to declare the result in the next week, this court directed M.P.S.C. to hold the interview of the petitioner by constituting the same Board / Committee who has interviewed the candidates for the post of Nayab Tahsildar. Accordingly, M.P.S.C. has complied with the directions of the court and after interviewing the M.P.S.C. has placed the result before the court wherein the petitioner has 3 not been able to get a place in merit so as to be considered for being appointed to the post of Nayab Tahsildar. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we find that the petitioner having secured less marks, no relief as sought for in the petition can be granted to the petitioner. 6. The petitioner also amended the petition in order to claim compensation for the mental harassment suffered by the petitioner in the matter. This amendment was sought to bring out subsequent developments on record and at the same time, how the petitioner suffered harassment by not permitting him to appear for the main examination inspite of he having cleared the preliminary examination. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Andra Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of D. Aarati Deendayal v. Convenor, EAMCET Examination, JNTU College of Engineering, Hyderabad and Ors. Reported in AIR 1999 ANDHRA PRADESH 138 wherein the candidate was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for having suffered the agony while appearing for EAMCET-1998 for no fault of hers. The other two cases are in respect of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta reported in (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 243 and Reliance Energy Ltd. and Another vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. Reported in (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1. It was submitted that the respondents have misled the petitioner by publishing the advertisement which clearly stated that for the post of Nayab Tahsildar, blind, partially sighted partially 4 deaf orthopedic can apply which according to the respondents is a misprint and contrary to the rules and the proposal sent to M.P.S.C. 7. We find that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, as soon as the petitioner approached this court, this court has taken care that the petitioner gets a fair opportunity in the matter by granting him interim relief at various stages and having ultimately found that the petitioner has not been able to qualify in the examination. No relief can be granted to the petitioner on account of mental harassment suffered by him as we do not find that any malafides or default can be attributed to the respondents to enable the petitioner to claim compensation for mental harassment and agony suffered by him in the matter. Therefore, we dismiss the petition. The results furnished to the court by the respondents be returned to them. ( J. N. Patel, J) (Smt.Mridula Bhatkar, J)