1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 333 of 2009 Pravin Rambhau Landge and others ...VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra and others =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- Mr. M.G.Burde, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. A.S.Fulzele, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 & 3 Mr. M.M.Sudame, Advocate for respondent no.2 Mrs. A.R.Taywade, Advocate for Respondent no.4 C ORAM : D.B.BHOSALE ; and PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 22ND July, 2010. 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] By this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking direction to the respondents to complete the recruitment process by issuing appointment/posting orders to the petitioners and others whose names were earlier included in the final select-list and who also completed Foundation training. The petitioners have also prayed for restraining the respondents from altering the final select-list by inserting non-selected candidates therein. 3] Learned counsel for respondent no.4 – Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Limited, at the outset, invited our attention to the judgment of Aurangabad Bench 2 of this Court, dated 16/10/2009 in a group of writ petitions (Writ Petition No. 6828/2008 and other writ petitions) and submitted that the issues and questions raised in this writ petition are squarely covered by this judgment. 4] We have perused the said judgment and more particularly paragraph 7 thereof. Paragraph 7 of the judgment reads thus :- “7. The core question in these petitions, therefore is, whether the respondents were justified in cancelling the earlier select list and preparing a second select list. We have already adverted to in detail to the affidavit in reply submitted by the respective Zilla Parishads and the MKCL. Large scale irregularity was detected in the generation of marks by the computerized process. The aforesaid exercise was carried out by MKCL on the basis of the complaint made by Zilla Parishad, Solapur. This necessitated the revision of the merit list of all the Zilla Parishads and it was noticed that irregularities existed in the merit list of all the Zilla Parishads. Accordingly, a second select list came to be prepared on the basis of this exercise carried out by the MKCL. This is not an isolated case of any individual candidate but it relates to the irregularities in drawing of the merit lists of all the Zilla Parishads. As pointed out by us above, figuring of the name in the merit list does not confer any legal right on the candidate to seek appointment. In the face of such irregularities in the drawing of the merit list, according to us, it was perfectly justified and it was necessary to set right the error which had crept in the drawing of the merit list/select list. 3 The respondents cannot be attributed with any mala fides or bias. In fact, it was the duty of the officers which has been carried to the hilt of correcting a faulty merit list. A candidate who is less meritorious than others cannot claim any right to be appointed merely because his name figures in the select list. We, therefore, see no reason whatsoever to quash the second merit list which has been drawn pursuant to the revision carried out by the authorities. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5622 of 2008 has also raised a challenge to the MKCL in holding the written examination as according to the petitioner the Rules relating to the recruitment in the Zilla Parishad did not contemplate a third agency in conducting the written examination. The aforesaid challenge is a challenge to the recruitment procedure after the candidates had submitted themselves to the written as well as the oral interview. It is only when the revision of the select list was carried out that this challenge is raised. A candidate having once participated in the recruitment process cannot turn round and question the recruitment process. In that light of the matter, therefore, we repel the challenge of the petitioners in this behalf.” 5] In view thereof, we have examined the sole contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, as reflected in paragraph 8 of the petition, which reads thus : “8. In this context, it will not be irrelevant to state here that the alleged reverification of the answer sheet was said to have been done by the 4 Respondent No.4 is appeared to have been carried out only in respect of those candidates who were not earlier included amongst 150 successful candidates (failed candidates) because, they could not obtain the minimum cut off marks. Otherwise, the written marks obtained by atleast certain successful candidates amongst total 150 candidates could have also been revised upwards or downwards and would not have been the same for all 150 candidates.” 6] It is thus clear that the challenge proceeds on the assumption that in the reverification of the answer sheets of the candidates who were earlier not included in the list of 150 successful candidates, was not done, is fallacious. It is clear from the observations made in paragraph 7 of the judgment, quoted above, that revision of the merit list of all candidates was carried out by the authorities. Moreover, learned counsel for respondent no.4, on instructions, confirms that the revision was carried out in respect of all the candidates. Thus, in our opinion, the challenge in this petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of this Court. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale