106wp3421.07.sxw 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3421 OF 2007 (Ku. Vandana Pundlik Lahane .vs. State and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D.D.Sinha & A. P. Bhangale, JJ. Date : 10/06/2009. Heard Mr. R. L. Khapre, Adv. for petitioner, Mrs.Wandile, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4, Mrs. S.W.Deshpande, Adv. for Respondent No2, Mr. R.G.Puranik, Adv. for Respondent No.5, Mr. A. S. Jaiswal, Adv. for respondent no.6 and Mr. N. B. Kalwaghe, Adv. for Respondent No.7. Mr. Khapre, Adv. for petitioner has submitted that, in the instant petition, the grievance of petitioner is in respect of selection process adopted by respondent/Zilla Parishad. It is contended that, pursuant to the advertisement, petitioner as well as respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 appeared in the written examination as well as oral interview for the post of Anganwadi 106wp3421.07.sxw 2 . Supervisor. It is contended that, in the process of interview, the petitioner has received 60 marks and she is also entitled to get five additional marks since the petitioner has served as a part time employee for three years in the Employment Guarantee Scheme program. Mr.Khapre, Adv. further contended that, as per the Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer in respect of irregularities alleged to have been committed during the interview process undertaken by respondent for the year 2007 for filling up the post of Anganwadi Supervisor, there is a mention that while evaluating the answer papers if there is overwriting or scoring in the answer paper, in that event, no marks should be allotted to such answers. It is contended that same procedure ought to have been followed in respect of valuation of answer books of the candidates those who have appeared in the written examination this time. It is contended that if the said procedure is applied, in that event, so far as respondent nos. 6 and 7 are concerned, their marks would be deducted since there is overwriting and scoring done in their respective answer books, and the marks obtained by petitioner would be more than respondent nos. 6 and 7 in the interview 106wp3421.07.sxw 3 . process, and hence, petitioner would be eligible to get appointment. Counsel for respondent no.2/Zilla Parishad has submitted that, so far as the method of evaluation of answer books of the concerned written examination is concerned, the criteria to deduct the marks on the ground of scoring and overwriting was not applicable and therefore, the marks cannot be deducted on these counts. Counsel for Zilla Parishad has further contended that, so far as the recruitment process of 2007 is concerned, because of the irregularities alleged to have been committed in the procedure of selection, a Committee was constituted to inquire into such irregularities and was asked to submit report. It is further submitted that, the Inquiry Committee, considering the nature of answer books, came to the conclusion that the marks were required to be deducted in respect of answers which are scored or where there is an overwriting. However, the said report was limited to the recruitment process of 2007. It is further contended that the valuation done in respect of answer books of the petitioner as well as respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 and others is as per the 106wp3421.07.sxw 4 . procedure applicable and the marks which are given are also consistent with the norms laid down in this regard. It is, therefore, contended that, since the petitioner has secured less marks in the process of interview than respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7, she was not appointed on the post of Anganwadi Supervisor. Counsel for respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 have supported the procedure adopted by the Zilla Parishad while conducting the process of interview including evaluation of answer books etc. Considered the rival contentions. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 have secured more marks than petitioner in the process of interview. It is also not in dispute that even if additional five marks are given to petitioner, which makes his total 65, even then respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 are having more marks than the petitioner and therefore, the grievance of petitioner in this regard is without merit. So far as the observations of the Inquiry Officer in the report relied on by the petitioner is concerned, those 106wp3421.07.sxw 5 . observations undoubtedly are on the basis of evidence available on record, the nature of inquiry and the scope of inquiry required to be conducted by the Inquiry Officer. Said observations in the Inquiry Report cannot be treated to be a general guideline required to be followed in all circumstances. In that view of the matter, the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for petitioner in this regard also cannot be accepted. Consequently, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Hence, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE jais