1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8154 OF 2008 Vishal Dashrath Ghaturkar .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Mr. V.N. Morande for the petitioner Mr. V.S. Masurkar, G.P., for Respondent No. 1. Mr. M.S. Karnik,, for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ DATE : 6TH JULY, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per J.N. Patel, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, petition taken up for hearing. 3. This petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking 2 directions against the respondents to place the name of the petitioner in the list of selected candidates published on 6.10.2008 in pursuance of advertisement dated 19.8.2004 and further that his seniority should not be affected to which he is entitled as per the performance chart of candidates at Annexure P3 to the petition and for interim and other ancillary reliefs. 4. The subject matter of the petition pertains to recruitment of Junior Clerks in District Court at Gadchiroli. It is the case of the petitioner that he has secured 62 marks in the selection process and was placed at serial no. 46 in the merit list of 134 candidates. The selection came to be challenged by the petitioner and others by filing writ petition no. 1724 of 2005 on the ground of fixing 70 marks as qualifying marks for selecting candidates. The said petition came to be dismissed by order dated 4.10.2005. After dismissal of writ petition no. 1724 of 2005 the petitioner came to know that remaining 65 posts out of 81 advertised posts of junior clerk were likely to be offered to the candidates who were already eliminated and not even similarly placed like the petitioner thereby disregarding the claim of the candidates like the petitioners who were though found eligible for appointment but not recommended due to having secured marks below the qualifying marks prescribed by the advisory committee i.e., 70 aggregate marks. Therefore, Review Application No. 181 of 2006 was moved in writ petition no. 3 1724 of 2005 wherein the Court granted stay to filling up 65 vacancies on the ground that the procedure adopted by respondent no. 2 was not just and proper. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the stay operating in the field, the respondent issued an advertisement dated 30.11.2007 for filing additional 117 posts which included 65 posts which were subject matter of writ petition no. 1724 of 2005 and other connected petitions. On this being brought to the notice of the Court, the Court permitted the petitioners in the review petition to participate in the process of selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.11.2007 without prejudice to their rights in writ petition no. 1724 of 2005. 6. According to the petitioner, he participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.11.2007 and was declared successful and was placed at serial no. 14 in the list of 117 successful candidates dated 9.4.2008 published by Registrar, District Court, Gadchiroli. The petitioner was also informed by communication dated 10/16 April, 2008 by the Registrar, District Court, Gadchiroli in respect of his selection to the post of Junior Clerk. On 30.6.2008, Review Petition No. 181 of 2006 in Writ Petition No. 1724 of 2005 and other connected matters came to be disposed of by this Court which held that the procedure adopted by the 4 advisory committee of eliminating the candidates who had secured marks lower than 70 aggregate is illegal and untenable. With these findings, directions were issued to the advisory committee to fill up 61 vacant posts against the advertisement by firstly considering the claim of candidates from serial no. 21 onwards from the earlier selection list in question subject to verification and eligibility and thereafter the merit list prepared in second selection process would operate. The posts to be filled pursuant to the subsequent advertisement were restricted to 56 posts as 61 posts which form part of the said 117 posts have been directed to be filled in on the basis of earlier selection list and, therefore, only 56 posts were be left to be recruited. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that having selected in response to the first advertisement he was declared as ineligible and his name came to be dropped in the list displayed on the board of district Court Gadchiroli on 6.10.2008 on the ground that he does not possess the necessary qualification i.e. MS-CIT certificate issued by the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, Mumbai. The petitioner brought to the notice of the District Judge, Gadchiroli that he has done diploma course in Ms-Windows and was possessing certificate dated 29.8.2002 in diploma in Ms Windows issued by – Suyog Computer Institute, Armori and so also passed MS-CIT examination. Copies were annexed to the application made by the 5 petitioner in response to the second advertisement and, therefore, he should be considered for being appointed. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 4 the aforesaid fact that the petitioner has annexed his MS-CIT certificate is not disputed. On the other hand, it has been clearly admitted that inadvertently his name could not be added in the list of 56 candidates who were selected as per the select list of 117 candidates in response to the second advertisement and, therefore, the respondents have no objection to accommodate the petitioner against the two posts of junior clerk which have been kept vacant in case the petition is allowed. 8. This is the short question which is required to be considered by us. The respondents have admitted that inadvertently the petitioner s name came to be dropped from the list of 56 ’ candidates who were selected in response to the second advertisement for the post of junior clerk for the reason that he was not possessing MS-CIT certificate. As a corollary therefore, the respondents ought to have offered appointment to the petitioner rather than driving the petitioner to approach the High Court for invoking its extra-ordinary jurisdiction. We are further surprised at the stand taken by the respondents in the mater that if the petition is allowed then the petitioner can be appointed. Once the respondents have admitted their mistake due to inadvertance, there 6 is no question of the petition being dismissed as the petitioner has been disqualified due to the mistake on the part of the respondents i.e., the selection committee of the District Court, Gadchiroli. Therefore, we direct the respondents to forthwith appoint the petitioner as junior clerk in the establishment of District Court, Gadchiroli and the petitioner be given seniority at sr. no. 14 in the select list of 56 candidates which was prepared in response to the second advertisement. 9. The petition is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 10. We expect the respondents to act on authenticated copy of this order. ( J. N. PATEL, J) (SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J)