1 wp1386.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1386 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and the Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: Smt. Nishita Mhatre, & Shri M. T. Joshi, JJ. Date : 20th July, 2011 Shri G.K. Kshirsagar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri N. B. Patil, A. G. P. for Respondent No. 1. Shri V. R. Sonwalkar, Advocate, for Resps. No.2 and 3. Shri M.P. Tripathi, Advocate for Respondent No. 5. ------- 1. The petition has been filed by a person who was unsuccessful in the examination conducted for being appointed to the post of Gram Sevak. According to the petitioner, he has answered question Nos. 17, 20 and 32 mentioned in the diary published by the Marathwada Agricultural University, for the year 2009. 2 wp1386.10 2. The petitioner contends that the model answers are incorrect inasmuch as they are not in consonance with the notings in the aforesaid diary. According to the petitioner, all the successful candidates have answered the questions as per the model answers which are inconsistent with the notings made in the aforesaid diary. The learned Advocate for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the answer should be declared as per the notings in the diary and the model answers should be declared incorrect. 3. We are not inclined to entertain the writ petition as it is now well settled by a catena of judgments that revaluation of the answer sheets cannot be undertaken by this court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. All the candidates were marked in accordance with the model answers. Furthermore, there is material on record to show that the entries mentioned in the aforesaid diary are correct and as per the syllabus for the examination. 3 wp1386.10 4. In the case of H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and anr. AIR 2010 SC 2621, the Supreme Court has held that it is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets for itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter-se merits of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of an answer, it could be so for all the candidates appearing for the recruitment examination and not for only one candidate. This judgment applies squarely to the facts in the present case. 5. Petition rejected. (M.T. JOSHI) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) pnd/wp1386.10