wp6512.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6512 OF 2010 Rajendra s/o Ramrao Kharat, R/o-Shivaji Nagar, Pathari Road, Parbhani, Dist-Parbhani. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The Maharashtra State Council of Examination, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Pune 400 001. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.S.S. Thombre Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.N.R. Shaikh, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri.A.R. Nikam Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 7TH JANUARY, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. wp6512.10 2 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he appeared for Centralized Process Examination held for the post of Shikshan Sevak. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that the Petitioner though rightly answered three questions, he was refused marks to those answers. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent No.2 has accepted that two answers given by the Petitioner were right. Therefore, the Petitioner submits that his marks be re-assessed and fresh result be declared. 3. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that the examinations were conducted on 2nd May, 2010, the results were declared on 1st June, 2010. The process is already complete. The copy of the order dated 29th September 2010, passed in Writ Petition No.5152 of 2010 by the Division Bench of this Court (CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SYED, JJ) is placed on record by the counsel wp6512.10 3 for Respondent No.2, stating that identical matter was not entertained by this Court. 4. We have considered the submissions advanced. It was submitted that around One Lakh candidates appeared in the examination. The Petitioner's two answers were not properly assessed, according to the Respondent No.2. But in view of the fact that selection process is already over and in absence of other candidates who appeared in examination, being not made party Respondents to the Petition, we are of the view that settled position shall not be disturbed now. In the identical fact situation, the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the Writ Petition No.5152 of 2010. This Petition is dismissed accordingly. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JAN11/wp6512.10