ssp 1 WP 5494 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5494 of 2010 Pravin Gorakh Khandagale and Ors. .....Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11 OF 2011 Kumar Kondiba Girigosavi & Ors. .....Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..... Respondents M/s.Prachi Kharge i/by M/s.M.P.Vashi & Associates, for the petitioner in WP No.5494 of 2010. Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar, for the petitioner in WP No.11 of 2011. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP, for respondent No.1 in both petitions. Mr.Kiran Gandhi i/by Little & Co., for respondent No.2 in both petitions. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR& A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 11th JANUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though they had given correct answer, but because of wrong answer key, the correct answer was treated as wrong answer. This Court has passed a detailed order on 21-12-2010. The Chairman of respondent No.2 was present before this Court on the last occasion and stated that appropriate care will be taken in this behalf and such things will not be repeated in future. ssp 2 WP 5494 of 2010 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that on the basis of eligibility criterion, the case of the petitioners shall be considered by giving additional marks to the concerned petitioners in connection with the answers given by the petitioners and on that basis, the eligible candidates who are entitled to get their names enrolled in the select list, their names shall be included in the select list as per the eligibility criterion. He states that the additional select list will be prepared in the light of what is stated above and the same shall be forwarded to the State Government immediately in any case within a period of one week from today. On receiving the same, the State Government shall pass appropriate order treating such candidates to be eligible for appointment and as and when vacancy arises, steps should be taken for appointing them in the concerned schools. The learned AGP states that he will communicate this order to the State Government forthwith. 2. The eligibility is to be considered by the respondent No.2 after adding necessary marks in favour of the concerned petitioners and on that basis, the eligibility should be fixed and thereafter, list of the eligible candidates should be forwarded to the State Government. It is however, clarified that this order should not be treated as a precedent in any case and this order is passed on clear understanding of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are not asking/disturbing the appointments which ssp 3 WP 5494 of 2010 are already made or the select list which is already prepared by the Department. It is also clarified that we have entertained the above petitions as the petitioners have approached this Court moment the select list is prepared and in view of the statement of the learned counsel that the petitioners are not seeking appointment by disturbing the appointments already made. The names of the concerned petitioners to be shown in the select list at an appropriate place as per the marks obtained by them. 3. So far as petitioner No.1 of Writ Petition No.5494 of 2010 is concerned, learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that he is eligible candidate. It is for respondent No.2 to find out his suitability and necessary steps to be taken accordingly. 3. In view of what is stated above, the writ petitions are disposed of. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )