1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3582 of 2011 Shri Pravin Prabhakar Warang & Others ..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others ...Respondents A/w WRIT PETITION NO. 1991 OF 2011 Shri Vinod Raghunath Mundekar & Others ..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others ...Respondents A/w WRIT PETITION NO. 3647 OF 2011 Mrs. Seema Pandurang Raut & Others ..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra 2 & Others ...Respondents A/w WRIT PETITION NO. 4101 OF 2011 Mr.Revannath M. Jamdade & Others ..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others ...Respondents A/w WRIT PETITION NO. 4598 OF 2011 Pritam Duryodhan Patil & Others ..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others ...Respondents A/w WRIT PETITION NO. 4102 OF 2011 Mr.Abhijit R. Pawar & Others ..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others ...Respondents 3 A/w WRIT PETITION NO. 4287 OF 2011 Amol Prakash Gawade & Others ..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others ...Respondents A/w. WRIT PETITION NO. 4554 OF 2011 Ms.Swati Vasant Gaikwad ..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others ...Respondents A/w. WRIT PETITION NO. 5595 OF 2011 Chitra L. Kadam & Others ..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others ...Respondents 4 Mr. S.M.Railkar for Petitioner in Writ Petition No.3582 of 2011 Mr.Anil Kadam for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1991 of 2011 Mr.S.S.Pakale a/w. Kirankumar Phakade for the Petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 4102/2011, 3647 of 2011, 4287 of 2011, 4698 of 2011 and 5595 of 2011 Mr.Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner in Writ Petition 4554 of 2011 Mr.Harshad Sathe for the Petitioner In Writ Petition No.4101 of 2011 Ms.S.S.Bhende AGP for Respondent No.1 in Writ Petitions 3582 of 2011, 1991 of 2011, 4101 of 2011, 4102 of 2011, 4287 of 2011, 4554 of 2011, and 4598 of 2011 and for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in Writ Petition No.3647 of 2011. Ms.Priyadarshani Birje for Respondent No.3 in Writ Petition 1991 of 2011 Mr.Prashant Chavan a/w. Ms. Shyamali Gadre i/b. Little & Co. for the Respondent no.2 in all petitions. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED:- 25th JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. On the earlier occasion learned AGP had placed before us the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 2011 whereby the Government constituted the Committee consisting of four members to examine the grievance of the candidates who have appeared for the examination conducted in May 2010 and also future 5 examinations. 2. In deference to the observations made by the Court on the earlier occasion, the Under Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Government of Maharashtra has issued a corrigendum dated 22nd July, 2011 reconstituting the Committee. Besides, the corrigendum also provides for minimum Coram of three members to hear the applications made by the concerned candidates. In the context of the wording of clause “5” of the corrigendum , Mr. Pakale appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that discretion is left to the board to reverify the papers of candidates having secured border line marks to the cut off marks. According to him, the Committee is free to consider the cases around the border line on its own; and if it fails to do so, no consequence is provided in this corrigendum. 3. In our opinion, if the candidate who has secured border line marks to the cut off marks, has any grievance, would be free to approach the Committee with such grievance and pray for reverification of his papers. The Committee in turn will be obliged to decide such 6 applications on its own merits. 4. In our opinion, in view of the above remedy made available to the candidates, all these petitions can be disposed of by giving liberty to each of the petitioners to pursue their remedy before the Committee. We have already recorded the assurance given by the respondents that the grievance of each of the petitioner will be considered by the Committee as if made in time. 5. The only issue that needs to be noted is to remind the Committee of early disposal of each of these applications. We are informed by the Counsel for the Council, on instructions that the Committee intends to dispose of each of the application received so far, or to be received in future as expeditiously as possible and hopefully on or before 31st August, 2011 (before the term of present wait list expires). In view of this statement we do not think it necessary to issue any direction in this behalf. 6. Accordingly, all these petitions are disposed of with liberty to each of the petitioners to pursue their remedy before the Committee. 7 7. In so far as Writ Petition No. 4101 of 2011 is concerned, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner nos.2 to 6 have now secured marks more than cut off marks. However, no appointment has been given to those petitioners on the ground that they did not claim appointment under the category of Project Affected Persons. According to these petitioners, they had specifically mentioned that fact in the application form and in fact their names are included in the list of candidates belonging to Project Affected Persons. It is not necessary for us to examine this controversy, in view of the statement made by the Counsel for the respondents, that if the said petitioners have already mentioned that fact in the application form, their request will be considered under that category, subject to verification. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)