1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6540 OF 2008 Shri Sachin Ramchandra Chavan .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Priyal G. Sarda for the petitioner Ms.M.P.Thakur, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 4 CORAM: J.N. PATEL & Smt.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: JUNE 8, 2009 P.C. 1. This petition is filed invoking the writ Jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking appointment for the post of Technical Agricultural Officer, Zilla Parishad, Solapur. The petitioner has applied for the post of Technical Agricultural Officer, Zilla Parishad, Solapur pursuant to the advertisement dated 5.5.08. The petitioner cleared written examination and he was declared eligible candidate as he has secured the marks required for the qualification to enter into next round. So he was called to produce the necessary original documents in July 2008. However, the petitioner finally was not appointed though he was selected for the said post. Hence, he filed this petition. 2 2. The respondents have opposed the petition by filing short affidavit in reply. Therein, it is pointed out that after declaration of the select list of the candidates for the post of Agricultural Officer, one candidate Mr.V.V.Vedpathak who has applied for the post of Junior Draftsman has made application for revaluation of the mark sheet. Pursuant to the said application, the answer sheet which was received from MKCL was manually assessed and authority noticed the mistake in the valuation of the marks by MKCL. 3. It is further submitted that due to this error, the selection process of the candidates went totally wrong and after revaluation as the error was conducted, it was rectified by issuing new selection list in which the other two candidates have secured more marks than the petitioner. 4. It is further explained in the affidavit that the petitioner has secured 3rd place in the merit list and since there was only one vacancy, the petitioner was not selected and was not appointed for the said post. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the person who has applied for the revaluation was not a candidate who had applied for the said post. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the revaluation was done arbitrarily and hence, the petitioner claims recalling of the new select list and his appointment to the said post. 3 5. Perused documents before us. We find that if two candidates have obtained more marks than the petitioner and only one post was vacant then we do not find any fault in the selection and appointment process. As the petitioner stood 3rd in the merit list, he cannot claim any right in the appointment and the selection should go as per the merit. Hence, we do not find any merit in the petition. The petition stands dismissed. (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt. Mridula Bhatkar, J.)